E449 
.F9617 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 





1 V ^ M * <A 




^ 



«. i<M^ * .A 




0° ♦W&fe*r. ° .4* %* 




,* /4fe\ %../ .vaK^. %^ 











A REVIEW 

OF THE 

" CORRESPONDENCE" 

OF 

MESSRS. FULLER & WAYLAN]), 

ON THE SUBJECT OF 

^Imcrucm Slating: 

BY CYRUS PITT GROSVENOR. 
Ilavra cVi Soxipagsrs* to xaXov xars'^s-rc. 1 Thess. v:21. 

TO WHICH IS ADDED 

A DISCOURSE, 

BY ROGER WILLIAMS, 
Printed, London, 1652, on 
'THE HIRELING MINISTRY." 



UTICA, N. Y. 
PUBLISHED AT THE CHRISTIAN CONTRIBUTOR OFFICE 



H. H. Cxjrtisb, Printer, Devereux Block. 

1817. 






5 

Copy. 






PREFACE 



In the spring of 1845, the writer received the following note, which, ; n 
connection with the previous suggestion of several respected individuals, 
has been the occasion of his writing this review : 

" To Eld. C. P. Grosvenor : 

Dear Brother, — At a meeting of friends of the slave, held in the meeting 
house of the North Beriah Baptist Church, JVew York, on the 9th of May, 
3845, of which the undersigned were duly appointed officers, the following 
Resolution was unanimously adopted : 

Resolved, That Br. C. P. Grosvenor be respectfully requested to pub- 
lish a Review of the recent controversy between Drs. Fuller and Way- 
land. 

Permit us, in the discharge of our duty, to ask your compliance with 
the wishes of the meeting, as expressed in the Resolution, and thus oblige 
those we represent. 

We believe good may thus be accomplished, and heartily concur in the 
object of the Resolution. [Signed.] A. L. Post, Chairman. 

I. B. Price, Clerk."* 

Compliance with this request has been attended with both labor and 
solicitude : the latter springing mainly from the fear of falling into some 
misapprehension of the meaning of the writers, and of failing so to pre- 
sent the truth as to do justice to the momentous question at issue, whether 
the millions " in bonds " shall be free, or they with their multiplied pos- 
terity shall sigh and weep and groan on without relief, and whether the 
pure robe of Christianity shall be washed of the foul stain spread over it 
by Slavery, or continue to benr and exhibit that stain, wherever she turns 
and moves among a world of deriding observers. Still, by the belief that the 
sentiments I utter are true, and the views I give of the " Cerrespondence " 
are correct, and that the motives under which I write are approved of my 
final Judge, the labor is alleviated, and the solicitude mitigated, and the 
fear changed to hope. 

* At a Convention of Baptists held in Utica Aug. 5, 1846, the following 
resolution was passed : 

" On motion of Br. Tillinghast, voted to recommend the publication by 
Br. C. P. Crosvenor, of his able Review of Fuller and Waylaud, anil 
that the members of this Convention aid in its circulation." 

A part of the Review had been printed in the Christian Contributor. 



4 PREFACE. 

We shall purposely avoid words of flattery, and if our style may some 
times seem abrupt, let the candid reader consider whether it is not because 
of its directness and truth, perhaps, rather than because of any purpose of 
ours to treat any man rudely. If we must be thought severe in any thing, 
we hope that severity will not be found to consist in severe words. If the 
truth should seem severe, for that we are not responsible. Our prayer is 
that this Review may accomplish some good, and no evil to either of the 
writers or to either the free or the bond who may peruse, or be affected 
by it. 

■ Utica, June, 1847. THE AUTHOR. 



Note. — At the Anniversary of the A. B. F. M. Society, held in Albanv, 
May 5th and 6th, 1847, the publication of this Review was requested, ark! 
its circulation by the members recommended, by an unanimous vote-. 



A REVIEW 

Of "Domestic Slavery, considered as a Scriptural Institution : in a 
Correspondence bt tween tin- R< v. Richard Fuller, of Beaufort., S. C, 
and the Rev. Francis Wayland, of Providence, R. J. Revised and 
corrected by the authors. JVere York: Published by Lewis Colby, 
122 Nassau Street. Boston: Gould, Kendall >$• Lincoln. 1845." 

The title of the book is objectionable, if Mr. Wayland is 
to be regarded as repudiating the idea that the sacred scrip- 
tures furnish no support for slavery — " Domestic Slavery con- 
sidered as a Scriptural Institution" — since this title implies 
that both the writers " consider slavery scriptural." But I have 
supposed the idea intended by Mr. W. to be that the corres- 
pondents " considered" — argued the question — in the light of 
scripture truth; though, if I understand him, he has made 
admissions which go to a virtual surrender of the argument 
into his opponent's hands, and allow slavery to be "a scriptural 
institution." In this I am not alone. Mr. Fuller says, "if 
slavery was sanctioned in the Old and permitted in the New 
Testament, it cannot be a sin ; and he who says it is, will 
answer to God whom he affronts, and not to me." It is our 
purpose to examine this proud position with care. I shall first 
consider 

MR. FULLER'S VIEWS OF SLAVERY AND HIS 
ARGUMENT. 

In examining Mr. Fuller's view of slavery, I shall take bis 
own statement of the proposition which was to be discussed 
by him and Mr. Wayland, and his own definition of slavery. 
This, I think, is the only fair way of treating his part of the 
" Correspondence." 

" The question before us," says Mr. F., " I suppose to be 
simply this, Is slaveholding always a sin ?"* It is due to him 

* 1st Letter to Mr. W., p. 130. 

a2 



b REVIEW OV 

to say, that, in discussing this proposition, Mr. F. is not, like 
certain northern opponents of abolition, guilty of descending 
to such mere quibbles as — " Is that slaveholder chargeable 
with sin, who would emancipate his slaves if he could, but 
can not!" "Is he guilty who has resolved to emancipate, 
and is on his way with his slaves to the North for this express 
purpose ?" or "he who lives where it is contrary to the law to 
manumit on the spot, and is too poor to convey them to an- 
other State, or has mortgaged them for security V &c. He 
saw that all such suppositions are inapposite to the question, 
and contents himself with giving such a definition of slavery 
as comports with his conviction of what is right for him, and 
therefore, for every other man, to support. For, though he is 
" unwilling to appear as the eulogist and abettor of slavery, 
but simply the apologist of an institution transmitted to us by 
former generations, the existence of which," he says, "I la- 
ment,"* he soon adds, " I do say it is wrong to pronounce it 
a moral evil and a great crime in the sight of God."t " If sla- 
very be a crime necessarily and essentially, the manner in 
which it was orginated is just nothing at all to the purpose. 
Slavery is a condition, and if it be one of guilt, then not only 
is the master bound to clear his skirts of it, without regard to 
its origin or consequences, but (as with a woman detained in 
adultery,) it is the duty of the slave — his duty not only to 
himself but to hi3 master — to revolt and escape." 

Here Mr. F. frankly and fully admits the correctness and 
propriety of the abolition doctrines and measures, as held and 
practiced by the " ultraists," if slavery, in his own definition 
of it, is sinful. I as fully grant, that, if slavery is not sinful, 
taking the same definition of it, our doctrines and measures 
are all wrong, and ought to be abjured. 

* 1st Letter to Mr. W., p. 128. t p. 129. 



FULLER AND WAY LAND. 7 

I cannot allow this opportunity to pass, without declaring 
the pleasure I experience in according with Mr. F. in some 
of his sentiments. " If a good work cannot be carried on by 
the calm, self-controlled, benevolent spirit of Jesus, then the 
time for doing it has not come." Perhaps, I might prefer 
saying, that " then the time for" repenting of wrong feelings, 
and seeking after the right " spirit" has come ; for the good 
work ought to be done at any " time," but not with a bad 
" spirit." " The wrath of man" no more " worketh the righte- 
ousness of God," in the cause of abolition, I grant, than in 
holding a slave ; and if the " benevolent spirit of Jesus" can, 
if Jesus himself could, hold a slave, then Mr. F. is doing right 
in holding slaves, on the terms of his own definition of slavery, 
which I will soon lay before the reader in his own words. I 
suppose, however, that Mr. F. would admit that an evil spirit 
is not more desirable or virtuous in promoting a bad work 
than a good one. 

" That sin must at once be abandoned," adds Mr. F., with 
strictest truth, '•' is a proposition which admits of no debate. 
If slavery, then, be a sin, it should at once be abolished " — 
Here is our doctrine, so bitterly quarrelled with by many at 
the North, — the ultra abolition doctrine of "immediate eman- 
cipation, regardless of all other consequences than may ever 
be expected to follow from obeying the mandate of the Al- 
mighty ;" for, if divine truth requires, as we believe it does, 
that the little word "if," of Mr. F.,be stricken out, the doctrine 
of immediate abolition could not be better expressed than — 
u Slavery" being " a sin, it should at once be abolished." Mr. 
F. is no gradualist ; and, erroneous in his views of slavery as 
I regard him, his error is less pernicious than that of many 
professed haters of slavery, who, while they declare slavery to 
be " a most horrid sin," inculcate the heresy that this sin, un- 
like any other, ought not to be abandoned at once, but ought to 



8 REVIEW OF 

be gradually desisted from. I wonder not at the astonishment 
expressed by Mr. F. that his antagonist should be guilty of 
such a heresy. Mr. F., in this particular, honors the sacred 
scriptures £ar more than his antagonist, who, though calling 
slavery a sin, had, nevertheless, admitted that God gave spe- 
cial direction to the Jews to hold slaves, and that the apostles 
permitted slavery, when Mr. F. replies, " What God sanc- 
tioned in the Old Testament and permitted in the New, 
cannot be sin." Mr. F. also justly and indignantly rejects 
the idea that God ever taught the doctrine of " expediency," 
as it is set forth and commended by Mr. Wayland. 

Indeed, there are, in these letters of Mr. Fuller, many val- 
uable truths which were once believed, inculcated, and prac- 
ticed at the North; but which, in their "over-heated and 
inconsiderate zeal" and haste to put down the abolitionists, and 
to persuade the slaveholders of their trustworthiness in their 
service, (SovXsia) the "conservators" have sacrificed, though, 
as it appears, without attaining their object, either at the 
North or at the South ; for the abolitionists have not been put 
down, and the slaveholders do not thank these, servile men 
for their unfortunate abandonment of some of the best known 
and most valuable truths to aid their cause ; because they fear, 
perhaps, lest it will necessarily be thought a bad cause whose 
support or defence requires such sacrifices. Mr. F. certainly 
neither thanks Mr. W. nor gives him any honorable credit 
for the admissions he has made, though he gives him to un- 
derstand that, in making them, he had surrendered the entire 
argument. I am now reviewing Mr. F. and not Mr. W., or 
I might express the sorrow I have invariably felt, since the 
appearance of these letters, that the defence of freedom had 
not in this instance fallen into the hands of one who had 
studied the subject w-ith more care, and was possessed of more 
of the spirit of William Wilberforce, Lafayette, Thomas 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. H 

ClarksoQj or Touissaint L' Ouverture. The capacious love of 
man which animated the hosom of cither of those truly great 
men, would have conducted him through the discussion with 
more of honor to himself, and of safety to the oppressed mil- 
lions, whose ostensible defender this writer assumed to be, 
without a call from their real friends. But as the argument 
•has been left in this discussion triumphantly in the hands of 
the advocate of slavery, the evil must be borne with as much 
patience as its terrible magnitude will permit. It may, how- 
ever, seem reasonable that those who have spent many of the 
best years of their life in toil, and with many sacrifices, and 
enduring no mengre amount of reproach, to shed light upon 
the holy cause of human rights, and to retrieve it from the low- 
condition to which " the love of money" and pride, and licen- 
tiousness had reduced it, should experience some chagrin on 
living to see so much of their labor counteracted, and so much 
of what they had achieved for the slave, wrecked and lost. 
Just so much more is to be done, before the cause of universal 
liberty shall be uplifted above the reach of the spoilers, and it 
must be done. This " Correspondence" renders the duty more 
imperative. 

Triumphant as Mr. F. and his friends may regard his argu- 
ment, not only over that of Mr. W., but over every other, it 
may be said, without arrogance, that the simple truth, even in 
the hand of one much his inferior, is too strong for his ingeni- 
ous sophistry ; and, in humble faith in the God of the oppres- 
sed, and devoutly imploring his aid, I shall endeavor to expose 
that sophistry, and to show that his entire argument is reared 
on a fallacy, and is, therefore, a failure. 

This fallacy is contained in his definition of slavery, and, 

therefore, I shall subject that definition to a candid and careful 

scrutiny. It is given by Mr. F. in the following explicit terms : 

41 Slavery is bondage. It is (to give Palev's idea in other lan- 

A3 



10 REVIEW OF 

guage) the condition of one to whose service another has a 
right,* without the consent or contract of the servant. The 
addition you make to this definition is really included in it, 
the original right involving, of course, all rights necessarily and 
properly implied." 

In his introductory letter, he had quoted the definition of 
Dr. Paley, " an obligation to labor for the benefit of the mas- 
ter, without the contract or consent of the slave ;" and then 
remarked, " This is all that enters into the definition of slave- 
ry, and what ingredient here is sinful?" p. 7. And he had 
added a very important explanation, denying thai the slavery 
he approves, necessarily involves the chattel relation, " It is 
by no means an attribute of slavery that a master may treat 
his slaves as a chattel ; the Bible forbids this, and every feeling 
of our nature rises up and must forever and effectually prevent 
it." " The slave has his rights, many of which are protected 
by our laws, and all by the Bible." " Property in a slave is 
only a right to his service without his consent or contract ; 
and if this be necessarily criminal, then the authority of a 
father over his child, and of government over its citizens, must 
be criminal too." p. 9. Fair dealing requires that I allow Mr. 
Fuller thus fully to explain himself; and, having so done, I 
return to consider his definition of slaveny, quoted from page 
130 of the book. 



* That Mr. Fuller should have been guilty of thus misrepre- 
sening " Paley's idea," is astounding ; for" Paley" has given his 
own " idea" itself 'in this" other language :" " Slavery," said Pa- 
ley, in the year "■ 1780," probably before Mr. F. was born, " is a 
dominion and system of laws the most merciless and tyrannical 
that were ever tolerated upon the face of the earth." He might 
as well have said that, he gave William Pitt's idea, which was, 
that " Slavery is incurable injustice. Why is injustice to remain 
a single hour V Or that of Grotius — "Those are men-stealers 
(dvSpaifoditf'rcus, 1 Tim. 1 : 10.) who abduct, keep, sell or buy 
slaves." 



FULLER AND WAYLANP. 11 

To come at a correct and full view of his meaning, it seems 
necessary that I state here what was Mr. Wayland's " addi- 
tion" to Mr. Fuller's definition, which, the latter says, " is really 
included in it." " If the master enjoy this right (to oblige the 
slave to labor for his benefit, without the consent of the slave,) 
he enjoys," said Mr. W. very correctly, " also the right to use 
all the means necessary both to enforce and to render it per- 
manent. If this right exist, therefore, I do not perceive that 
any exception can be taken to the sternest laws which have 
ever been enacted in any of the Southern States, even though 
they prohibit, under the severest penalties, the education of 
the negroes, and forbid them to assemble for the worship of 
God, except under the strictest surveillance." p. 23. So, then, 
all this " is really included in" Mr. Fuller's definition of slave- 
ry, and is, of course, " the right" conferred by God on Mr. F., 
and all other slaveholders, if slavery is, as he claims, an insti- 
tution recta in se, (essentially good) being established and 
approved of God. 

I regard this as the proper place to take notice of the fact 
that Mr. F., whatever some of his remarks about " a material 
retrenchment" from this definition may seem to signify to the 
contrary, goes the whole length in approving and attempting 
to defend the existing Slavery of this country. His language 
is strong and even eulogistic of Southern slavery, as the fol- 
lowing long quotation amply evinces. " As soon as slavery 
is mentioned in the North, there is conjured up, in the minds 
of many persons, I know not what confused, revolting combi- 
nation, and heart-rending spectacle, of chains, and whips, and 
cruelty, and crime, and wretchedness. But I repeat it, even 
at the peril of tediousness, that necessarily and essentially — 
(and in a multitude of instances, practically and actually)— 
slavery is nothing more than the condition of one who is de- 
prived of political power, and does service, without his contract 
A I 



12 REVIEW OF 

or consent, it is true, but yet, it may be, cheerfully and happily 
and for a compensation reasonable and certain, paid in modes 
of return best for the slave himself. With what is strictly 
physical liberty the master interferes no more, in such cases, 
than you do with a hired servant. The work assigned is 
confessedly very light — scarcely one half of that performed by 
a white laborer with you. When that is performed, the slaves 
(to use an. expression common with them) are 'their own 
masters.' And if you ever allow us the pleasure of seeing 
you at the South, you will find slaves tilling land for them- 
selves, and selling various articles of merchandise for them- 
selves ; and when you inquire of them some explanation, they 
will speak of their rights, and their property, with as clear a 
sense of what is due to them, and as much confidence, as they 
could if free ; and tell you (to use another of their phrases) 
that they do all this in their own time." pp. 150, 151. 

Having given Mr. Wayland this very savory taste of Slave- 
ry, than which nothing could be more false to the facts which 
give to Southern Slavery its general character, and having 
thus hinted that, as Mr. W.had condemned the Abolitionists, 
he had proved himself not one of them, and, therefore, if he 
should ever visit "the South," instead of being "hanged," he 
would be received with " pleasure ;" — Mr. Fuller proceeds 
with evident glee — " I hope, my dear brother, I have shown 
that your ethical argument does not hold good." p. 151. 

That Mr. F. intends to include in his definition of Slavery 
the existing Slavery of the South, is an essential fact, inasmuch 
as many readers, among whom is Mr. Wayland, have, by 
some means, been led to suppose that this is not his view ; 
but that, disapproving the present system as one great "abuse" 
of the morally right and pure "principle" of slavery, and, 
therefore, putting it aside, he would begin anew and cultivate 
a system worthy, in all its practical details, of that divine 



FULLER AHD WAYLAND. 13 

principle. Mr. F. is, consequently, looked upon as a reform- 
er, and, indeed, one of the better sort. Between him and Mr. 
W.,many seem to think, slavery will be demolished. These 
persons see Mr. Fuller standing near the old tree, axe in hand, 
ready to hew down the huge, awkward, cragged, mis-shapen 
thing : they see him eyeing it as a very Bohon Upaz bearing 
the most deadly fruit. The fruit, the branches and the very 
trunk itself, are all supposed to be odious to Mr. F., as though 
he regarded what appears above ground as having been en- 
grafted by unwise and even wicked men ; but he says no such 
thing in all of his letters. They grant that he has fallen into 
a trifling mistake, perhaps, in averring that the root (" the 
principle") is good : still this is of little moment, since he con- 
demns " the abuses." But for the grafting, then, the fruit 
would always have been both delicious and salubrious ; nay, 
the tree itself would have been pleasant to look upon, and 
would have spread its cooling foliage over many millions more 
of " the best conditioned peasantry in the world." Nay, in- 
deed the very grafting seems to be attributable to the fanati- 
cism of the Abolitionists. Such readers have misread Mr. 
Fuller. Mr. Wayland, in particular, has imputed to him a 
dislike of slavery which, I doubt not, he would disown, if he 
were to reply to Mr. Wayland's last letter. The grand pre- 
mise he sets out with, is that God instituted the relation of 
master and slave ; and his inference to the undeniable con- 
clusion (if only this premise were sound,) is that the master 
holds the moral right to govern the clave and use his labor 
with the profits, without asking the consent of the slave, or 
allowing him to be a party to the contract, the only parties to 
which are God and the master, as in the case of parent 
and child — of civil government and subjects. This is Mr. 
Fuller's illustration. Now, then, he must show that God in- 
stitutes and authorizes the slaveholding power as He doea 



14 REVIEW or 

parental nnd eivll authority, before ho can prove the rightful- 
ness of the relation of owner and slavo. Mr. Fuller's argu- 
ment involved in his illustration proves too much ; since, if 
from the right of the parent to the service of his child during 
his minority, and the parent's right to coerce that service, it is 
legitimately inferrible that the slaveholder has the right to 
coerce the slave to labor for him, the same inference applies 
to coerced labor of any other man as well as of the man now 
claimed as a slave, for it is easy to claim the service of any oilier 
man, and then the same right would be established on the 
same principle. And his comparison of the slave to the sub- 
ject of State government, is equally unfortunate, since, as it is 
truly averred in the Declaration of Independence, such gov- 
ernment " derives its just powers from the consent of the 
governed" which Mr. F. admits is not the fact in the case of 
the slave, 

If, however, it could be shown that God ever did establish 
the relation of master (owner) and slave, we would now only 
have to ascertain who are the appointed masters and slaves, 
as we know who are parents and children, and all controversy 
would cease. Mr. F. is undoubtedly right in denying that 
slavery is malum in se, a moral evil in itself, if God ever in- 
stituted it, as he did institute the parental relation. Pie can, 
then, institute it among any other people, as it is averred he 
did among the Jews. In the times of Abraham and Moses, 
he often made known his will by direct revelation, as by an 
audible voice from heaven, and in visions, and by inspiration ; 
but now, since these mode3 are supplanted by his written word 
and his providence, if his word establishes the principle of 
slavery, his providence may sufficiently indicate the persons 
who may rightfully own and be owned, or hold and be held, as 
master and slave. 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 15 

I may here remark that I am unable to see any good reason 
for the distinction Mr. F. seems desirous of making, asserting 
that slaves are rightful property, but objecting to the applica- 
tion 10 them of the word "chattels," which the laws of his 
own State expressly make them, and which they must be, so 
long as they are slaves, property to be bought and sold just 
like any other chattels ; and he contends that the Bible 
gives authority to buy, hold and sell, " transfer," them as 
'•' property." How then, can he make it appear that the Bible 
forbids chattelizing a man ? This is obviously a mere quibble 
unworthy of a logician. 

But we have another remarkable statement which is, by no 
means, a quibble, but is the directest contradiction and the 
grossest absurdity. " A right to the service ^of a man with- 
out his consent or contract," says Mr. F., " conveys no addi- 
tional rights but those proper and necessary to this original 
right. But it is not proper and necessary to this original right 
that a human being be deprived of any right which is justly his, 
as an immortal, intelligent, moral, social and fallen creature. 
Therefore, a right to the services of a man, does not justify 
any wrong done to his mind, or soul, or domestic relations." 
Is no wrong done " to his mind, or soul, or domestic relations" 
in the very fact of " urging him to labor for another by a vio- 
lent motive, without his contract or consent 1" Does Mr. F. 
see clearly in what way he himself could so be dealt with, 
without any wrong done to " his mind, or soul, or domestic 
relations V The case of the child laboring for his father is 
infinitely different; for, though coerced, it may be, "by a 
violent motive," to do his father service, that very service is 
not for the father's benefit alone, but is designed of God, the 
benevolent institutor of this relation, to result in the greatest 
good of the child through the kind discipline of the father, the 
intellectual and moral training he is required to exercise 



] 6 REVIEW OF 

towards the child, together with ample provision for his health 
and comfort, while under the parental control, and with heir- 
ship to the property he is earning. But who will pretend that 
there exists in the slaveholder's heart any such principle as 
parental love 1 or that such intellectual or moral training can 
ever be secured to the slave as parental love secures to the 
child ? or that such care for his health and comfort will be 
rendered to a slave, where the chief end of holding a slave, 
young or old, is the emolument of the owner, as parental love 
spontaneously bestows 1 or that a slave is ever a lawful heir 
to the property he accumulates? It is worse than folly to at- 
tempt to make the cases parallel to any extent whatever. To 
place the most unnatural of all possible relations, which by 
Mr. Fuller's own definition is the product of violence, side by 
side with the most natural and endearing of all relations found- 
ed in the very constitution of man and so ordered as, more 
than any thing else, to secure the happiness and improvement 
of children, instead of proving any analogy, evinces most clear- 
ly the infinite disparity. It is like placing beauty by deformity, 
virtue by vice, truth by error, heaven by hell, for the purpose 
of proving that there is between them no essential difference ; 
it only elevates the good and the lovely, and makes more con- 
spicuous the evil and the odious. Nevertheless, Mr. Wayland, 
commenting on this passage in Mr. Fuller, says : " This, I 
confess, is to me a new view of the institution of domestic 
slavery, and I must add that it pleases me incomparably better 
than any that I have ever seen. Slavery, according to this 
definition, confers on the master no right whatever, beyond 
merely that of obliging the slave to labor." 

" Merely that — it pleases me incomparably better," ts,c. 
This is a trifle surely — to be " obliged to labor " for " another, 
urged by a violent motive, without consent or contract," 
during a whole life — " merely that " ! ! — very pleasing ! and a 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 1 i 

very " new view of domestic slavery," too ! The reader may 
weep that he was not born to such beatitudes. 

But, seriously, what there is " new*-' in the " view" given 
by Mr. F., I do not perceive ; and Mr. W. and others are at 
liberty to ascribe this acknowledgment to my want of intel- 
lectual acumen. To me it is the same old " view" always 
held by slaveholders, or rather it is the defense of their " right" 
of holding slaves, which has always been given by them. In 
what essential particular does Mr. Fuller's definition differ 
from the common definitions given by individuals and legis- 
latures ? According to Dr. Johnson, " slave signifies one 
mancipated (taken or seized by the hand) or sold to a mas- 
ter." The code of South Carolina requires that " slaves 
shall be deemed, sold, taken and reputed to be chattels per- 
sonal in the hands of their owners and possessors, their execu- 
tors, administrators and assigns, to all intents, constructions 
and purposes whatsoever." See laws of S. C. ; Stroud, p. 22. 
That " the rights (powers) proper and necessary to (maintain) 
the original right" of holding a man as a slave, comprehend 
all that the definition of Johnson and the laws of South Caro- 
lina assert, can not be denied by Mr. F., since he involves in 
the " rights necessary," the right of " transfer" or sale, and of 
prohibiting literary instruction. 

That which to Mr. W. is so " new," and gives him so much 
pleasure, to me is the same old scheme employed by men time 
immemorial, for the purpose, first of making the wrongs they 
perpetrate seem to themselves right, and then, of persuading 
the rest of mankind to look with favor or at least with miti- 
gated severity on their practices. Indeed, what other ground 
could the slaveholder occupy ? It is, in fact, the ground occu- 
pied alike by all those who, in any degree, respect religious 
obligation, and yet adhere to some practice which, by candid 
and uninterested men, is esteemed a settled immorality ; for. 



18 REVIEW OP 

if there Were no way to shield themselves against a like con- 
viction of its immoral nature, their conscience accusing them 
of guilt, they see that its abandonment is inevitable. And 
who, that exists in the present imperfect state of humanity, is 
ignorant of frequent and spirit-stirring assaults, under such 
circumstances, of motives of interest, ease, wealth, pride, 
pleasure 1 These beset us all, " semper et ubique," and, as a 
mighty besieging force, they invest the city day and night, 
vigilantly waiting for an opportune occasion, the sleep of a 
sentinel, the opening of a gate, the falling of an undermined 
section in the wall, or cautiously essaying the sinking of a 
mine, or patiently continuing the siege, till want keen and 
irresistible shall take part with the assailants and counsel a 
surrender. It is no calumny, therefore, to suppose Mr. F. 
exposed, like other men, to such moral enemies. To suppose 
otherwise, would strangely elevate him above the common 
liabilities of peccable mortals. No man would ask me to 
make such a concession. An apostle was aware of " a law 
in his members, warring against the law of his mind"' and 
sometimes successfully.* I only desire that neither the reader 
nor Mr. F. himself will place him above the possibility of 



* Mr. F. seems to be himself aware of the power of circumstances, instead 
of truth, in making him a slaveholder and keepir.gr him so. This is not the 
tirst time he has "done battle" for slavery. In the year 1840, he appeared 
in reply to an Address to the South sent out by the American Baptist Anti- 
slavery Convention. In that reply he says, " I am confident, had I been 
born irl Boston, or New York, I would think ns they (the Abolitionists) do." 
in this he went farther in his reverence for the power of circumstances than 
facts seem to warrant, since many a Bostonian and other citizen of the 
North were in 1840, and are in 1847, as much in error as Mr. F. touching 
this subject; and no small number born and educated in the midst of 
Southern institutions and glued to slavery by interest, as Brisbane, Bir- 
ney, and many others, have broken loose from its enchantments and be- 
come what Mr. P. calls them, " violent Abolitionists." It is not impossible 
that Mr. F. may join them yet, if his Northern friends will let him ; and. if 
he should, he would be among the most " violent" of them all, having more 
guilt accumulated to act upon his conscier.ee than most others, on account 
of his zealous advocacy of slavery under his superior light. 



] i LLEK AND WAYLAXM. J U 

error or hold him impeccable. A slaveholder may fall into 
error and sin as another man. This I consider in point 
here, because of the peculiar boldness and stringency of his 
denunciations of Abolitionists (by no means including Mr. 
W. or the Editor of the Reflector, however*) for his tone is 
that of one speaking ex cathedra or uttering truths oracular. 
In his letter introductory to the discussion with Mr. W., he is 
very direct and explicit, and I am glad of it. " The Aboli- 
tionists," he gravely observes/' are not among those with whom 
we can associate. They occupy a position hostile alike to us 
and to the word of God, and to every principle of charity.' 
So it appears that, in writing to the Reflector (the Reflector 
bore it meekly) and to Mr. W., who bowed assent, he was 
not associating with Abolitionists. This is as true as any 
thing in his letters. But hear him farther — '-'people who are 
essentially monomaniacs — with whom neither you" (the Ed- 
itor of the Christian Reflector) " nor anybody at the North, 
who loves Christ and the gospel better than self and strife and 
fanatical intolerance, will long be able to harmonize." p. 12. 
Very gentle and modest ! It is not strange that the Reflector 
and Mr. W. sweetly acquiesced. " Par nubile fralrum .'" 
In all this, the tone of Mr. F. is that of one free from doubt 
— certain that in so treating us, he '•' was doing God service." 
Whether, like " Saul of Tarsus," he is destined hereafter to 
retract his accusations of the disciples cf Christ, it does not 
become the denounced to determine. God knows, and future 
historians will, probably, set the matter right. This is all we 
ask. We are, at present, cashiered — looked down upon as 
unworthy of being " associates " of such men as Mr. F., the 
Editor of the Reflector, Mr. W. and " any body at the North, 
ivho" &c* In return, I will not even venture so much as to 

* In the " reply" alluded to in the previous Note, speaking of the kind 

13 



20 REVIEW OF 

look up and ask, whether we (the thousands of men and wo- 
men who remain faithful to the slave) do, indeed, merit this- 
treatment at tlie hands of Mr. F. 1 — or whether either he or 
his cheerful endorser, Mr. W., is aware of " the spirit he is 
of" 1 One thing is, however, too obvious to be questioned — 
our right, in self-defense and in defense of truth and of the 
character of the God of justice, to demonstrate, if we are 
able, the unsoundness of his general positions. This we shall 
not be able to do, if the truth is not on our side ; but, if it is 
with us, GOD is with us, and the task is, at least, possible. 

It is high time the truth were every where known on the sub- 
ject of slavery. This is evinced in a hundred forms, and in no 
way more clearly than by the fact, which no longer admits of 
denial, that men calling themselves Christians, now stand rang- 
ed on opposite sides, each party publicly declaring the other not 
only erroneous, but supremely so. If an observing world of 
skeptical persons take the testimony of these parties in the 
American Churches as worthy of credit, they must conclude 
the whole to be corrupt, and too corrupt to be the proper expo- 
nents of a pure religion. 

Mr. F. is right in saying " that a clear and conclusive 
declaration of Jehovah's will would have been given, if slav- 
ery be an awful sin." And on a parallel, I remark that, if 
slaveholding be a virtue, a no less "clear and conclusive decla- 
ration" would have been given. And yet without any such 
" declaration" in support of the practice and with the utmost 
possible " clear declaration of Jehovah's will against it," Mr. 
F. asserts the divine right — the divine approval, of slavery ; 



of missionaries he supposed the "American Baptist Anti-slavery Conven- 
tion" desired to send to the South, Mr. F. says : " Missionaries— not of the 
Gospel of God; but of hatred, and insubordination, and bloodshed." In- 
deed, he went so far as to charge, that we had " warned" the South that 
we would send such Missionaries. If we ever did give such an intimation, 
or indulge such an intention, we must have been very wicked men. 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. '21 

and many others do the same, as R. Fur man, D. D., formerly 
of South Carolina, Thornton Sir ingf allow, a Baptist minister 
in Virginia, &c. Mr. F., in the reply before mentioned in my 
Notes, says — " The Holy Ghost, after his (Christ's) ascent, 
expressly authorized slavery. We view your language, as 
offering direct insult to the unchangeable and Holy One of 
Heaven." Thornton Stringfellow asserts that " slavery re- 
ceived the sanction of the Almighty in the Patriarchal age, 
and that gospel fellowship is not to be entertained with per- 
sons who will not consent to it." In perfect harmony with 
this strain of denunciation, a Baptist minister, of the South, 
has denounced the speaking against slavery as a" sin against 
the Holy Ghost." On the other hand, the imputation of slav- 
ery to God, as its author, or institutor, or approver, has been 
declared to be " blasphemy" by too many to be enumerated. 
Then, there are Northern men, who, with Mr. W., " admit 
that the Patriarchs held slaves," and the Mosaic law tolerated 
slavery, and the primitive Christian Churches admitted slave- 
holders as good brethren ; at the same time that they 
do not grant that slavery is right now. This latter class 
do more to bring the Bible into contempt than the slavehold- 
ers can, because, while they call it sinful, they admit Bible 
authority for slavery at some period of the world. And^ 
indeed, all such are held in fellowship by slaveholders and 
reciprocate the kindness. Others at the North go all lengths 
in supporting slavery as right now. Mr. W. lauds Mr. F. as 
one of the very best of Christians, and only desires that " all 
other slaveholders be made just such masters" as he is, and 
that his " views, so far as he understands them, be carried into 
practice." 

Now it is clear that, unless this reciprocal condemnation be 
terminated soon, by an acknowledgment of the wrong by the 
party to which it attaches, and this " gross darkness" be dissi- 



22 REVIEW OF 

pated from the minds of Northern apologists and connivers, 
Christianity will inevitably fall into general disrepute. I 
know that observers ought to go beyond the professor of 
religion to the scriptures themselves, with all questions affect- 
ing the purity of the religion contained in these sacred writ- 
ings ; yet " ye are the light of the world," is a saying of the 
Master, and Christians are regarded as bringing out before 
" the world," in their opinions and practices, " the light" of 
Christianity. This great question must, then, be settled — 
whether the Bible does approve or condemn slavery, as de- 
fined and advocated by Mr. Fuller. To what more solemn, 
or momentous, or profitable labor can, therefore, the friend of 
God, of truth, and of humanity devote himself? 

It is not a question for us to moot, whether the principle of 
slavery, as stated by Mr. F., seeks any approval in the great 
principia, or fundamental laws of natural religion which es- 
tablish the original or constitutional rights of man, as natural 
justice and benevolence. All agree that by these slavery does 
not and could not exist. Mr. F. himself evidently admits 
this, for he says to Mr. W.," I am unwilling to appear in any 
controversy, which can, even by implication, place me in a 
false and odious attitude, representing me as the eulogist and 
abettor of slavery, and not as simply the apologist of an insti- 
tution transmitted to us by a former generation, the existence 
of which I lament; for the commencement of which I am 
not at all responsible ; for the exiinction of which I am will- 
ing to make greater sacrifices than any abolitionist has made 
or would make, if the cause of true humanity would thus be 
advanced." This certainly looks like a condemnation of 
slavery; yet, strange as it must seem to every one, Mr. F. 
then goes on — " but which, for all that, I do say it is wrong 
to pronounce a moral evil and a great crime in the sight ot 
God." Tn hi3 reply several times before named in my Notes ( 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 23 

Mr. F. used the following explicit language — " If the question 
were a political one, about reducing a free people to servitude, 
I should oppose such an act as firmly as any man." 

Again, in his letters to Mr. W., " If you had asserted the 
great danger of confiding such irresponsible power in the 
hands of any man, I should at once have assented" — "speaking 
abstractly of slavery. I do not consider its perpetuation proper, 
even if it were possible. Nor let any one ask why not per- 
petuate it, if it be not a sin ? The Bible informs what man 
is, and among such beings, irresponsible power is a trust too 
easily and too frequently abused." 

From all we have seen of Mr. Fuller, (and I have not been 
sparing of quotations from him) we derive the following state- 
ment of his opinions : 1st. Slavery is contrary to the original 
laws of justice and benevolence, and, therefore, ought never 
to have existed — a free people ought not to be reduced to 
slavery. 2d. The slave power being despotic, " irresponsible 
power," can never be safely entrusted to any man, and ought 
never to be, and, therefore, slavery ought not to exist — it 
ought never to have been instituted. 3d. The abuses under 
it are such that it ought not now to be perpetuated, but ought 
to cease. 4th. God did authorize the holding of slaves, not- 
withstanding it ought not to have been done ; for " irrespon- 
sible power" ought not to be vested in any man. 5th. God 
having committed to me this " irresponsible power" which 
ought never to have been committed to any man, Lmay right- 
fully use this power, and I think it wrong to call it a sin to use 
it. 6th. The will of God, instituting, authorizing this rela- 
tion, is communicated to me in the Sacred Scriptures. 7th. 
What /have declared to be wrong and, therefore, not fit 
to exist, no man has a right to call wrong and impute the 
wrong to me ; but slavery ought to be imputed wholly to the 
declared will of God, which is, of course, contrary to the die- 



24 REVIEW OF 

tates of natural justice and benevolence ; but God has estab- 
lished institutions among men which are contrary to justice 
and love ; and yet he is the God of justice and love, and re- 
quires that every man love his neighbor as himself, or with im- 
partial benevolence : — so that I am authorized by the Bible to 
do that which is contrary to justice and love, and am just and 
benevolent in so doing, because God authorizes me so to do, 
which Ke ought never to have done. 

The reader is now, perhaps, prepared to accord to Mr. F. a 
remarkable unity and consistency of argumentation. He sets 
out with the assumption, the main and indeed his only pre- 
mise, that God confers on man the right to employ all the 
power necessary to urge by a violent motive his fellow men to 
labor for him, without the contract or consent of the subjected 
party ; and every step in his argument proceeds on this as- 
sumption, and is in perfect keeping with it. 

I call Mr. Fuller's premise an assumption, not, however, 
to imply that he declines an examination and support of this 
premise ; for I grant that he has labored assiduously, I can 
not say successfully, to prove the assumption, by appeals to the 
Scriptures. Now we have already seen that, in case he should 
prove that the Scriptures do sanction slavery by any establish- 
ment of it, he would only prove, according to his own show- 
ing, that they establish that which is unjust. But it will be 
remembered that Mr. F. has forbidden us to inquire what 
revelation -God would make, and so forecloses all trial of the 
Scriptures as being a revelation from God, on that strongest of 
all proof of their divine authenticity, their entire conformity 
with the principles of natural justice and love, about which, 
if the Bible itself states correctly, and if men usually judge 
accurately, conscience is supposed to have some original power 
of knowing. Let me refer to that very clear and striking 
passage in the 2d chapter of Romans, which corroborates that 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 25 

opinion which man has of himself, as a moral and responsible 
being. " God — who will render to every man according to 
his deeds — to the Jew first and also to the Gentile. For 
there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as 
have sinned without law, shall also perish without law ; and 
as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the 
law. The Gentiles — are a law unto themselves — which show 
the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience 
also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accus- 
ing or else excusing one another." Who display the law's 
work, or the work required by the law, written on their 
hearts, their consciousness joining testimony, their reason- 
ings holding judicial trial among themselves to condemna- 
tion, or even successfully defending. A more perspicuous 
declaration of a constitutional power in the human mind, of 
discerning right from wrong, could not be uttered, than the 
Apostle has here written. Indeed, if this power were not 
possessed by man, he could not be a moral being, a subject 
of law, or a responsible agent. This power of the mind is 
analogous to the power of vision in the eye, each requiring 
light in order to perceive objects, and, under the providence of 
God, being furnished with light adapted to the nature of the 
corporeal organ, or the mental faculty. So constituted and 
so circumstanced, man is capable of judging of the claims 
set up by the Bible, the Koran, the Shaster, or other book, to 
be a revelation from God. 

Mr. Fuller says that " neither Paley, nor any writer on 
natural theology, has advanced a single idea which had not 
been advanced long before the Christian era." p. 211. He 
does not presume to aver, however, that every thing advanced 
by these writers is true or in agreement with natural justice, 
which is the only legitimate source of the rights and duties of 
man. It is true that, " long before the Christian era," the 



26 REVIEW OF 

natural and only proper idea of right had been perverted, and 
that which was wrong, because unjust, and which, on that 
account, the "just God" could never make right, had been put 
for right, in the Scripture sense of "putting darkness for light, 
and calling evil good" Isa. v. 20. So it is possible to call 
the bright noonday light darkness, and the deepest shades of 
midnight light ; but that would not make any essential change 
in them. It is in this sense I mean to be understood, when I 
say that God could not make a natural wrong a right. He could 
never, therefore, by statute or precept, give to any man the 
"right" of being unjust. He himself does not and never can pos- 
sess the right of being unjust, and, therefore, can not impart such 
right to another being. We see here how preposterous it is 
to employ the word right as Mr. F. does, for to exercise " the 
right" of being unjust, is the greatest wrong. If we could 
suppose God capable of being unjust or of giving license to 
one of his subjects of dealing unjustly with another, he would 
in our esteem, instantly lose the character of being "just and 
holy," as we now reverently regard him. So, then, it needs 
not be further urged that we, and mankind everywhere, are 
constitutionally possessed of the power of determining, in all 
cases which come within the circle now supposed, what God 
has not established as right, because he could not do it, with- 
out being false to his own eternal and immutably holy princi- 
ples of righteousness. " God can not lie." Titus 1:2. " He 
can not deny himself." See, also, Mr, F. quoted p. 20. 

As the Creator of men, God did give to every one of them a 
love of liberty ; in other words, the propensity to seek their 
own good or happiness, which necessarily associates an unwill- 
ingness to be thwarted in that pursuit by any unjust interfer- 
ence of another. In perfect harmony with the proper indul- 
gence of this constitutional propensity, to restrain it within the 
limits of social justice and to secure its rights, God gave the 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 27 

K golden rule" and authoritatively established it as one of the 
two great Constitutional principles, under and in undeviating 
agreement with which he would and did enact every specific 
.statute, — " Thou s/talt love tlqj neighbor as thyself." Now 
who believes that, in any one oT all his specific enactments, 
the " Just God" has infracted the principle involved in this 
Constitutional law ? The governments of this world, at the 
same time that they have, without exception, professed to 
adhere to the principle of justice, have, every one, more or 
less, departed, as all know, from their professions. Our own 
national government is Constitutionally based on this princi- 
ple. It was declared in 1776, in the clear, unequivocal and 
strong language of that great State paper which lies now where 
our lathers laid it, call it " only a rhetorical flourish" or what 
yoa will, at the foundation of the government of these States. 
For some time, it was all the Constitution we had; and until 
it shall be as formally repudiated as it was adopted, whatever 
frame of government we choose to build, we rear on that 
same foundation, solemnly appealing to God for the rectitude 
of our cause. Accordingly, when in 1789- we reared the 
frame-work of government, now called " the Constitution of 
the United States " instead of upheaving that foundation, we 
expressly, though briefly recognized its principles in the "Pre- 
amble," leaving it, " the Declaration of Independence," as 
the grand political lexicon of that Constitution. We therefore 
said — " We the people of the United States, in order to form 
a more perfect union" (not to make new distinctions among 
the inhabitants,) " establish justice" (not to subvert it,) "in- 
sure domestic tranquility" (not to annihilate the family rela- 
tions, nor make one portion of many families the necessary 
enemies of another portion, so that the latter should need to 
go armed by day and sleep on their arms by night, in self- 
defense,) " provide for the common defense" (not to provide 
b3 



28 REVIEW OF 

for the defense of one portion of the people only, and plant a 
standing army over another portion, for the purpose of alienat- 
ing their " ' inalienable' right to life, LIBERTY, and the 
pursuit of happiness," but for, the " common defense" of all 
in the possession and exercise and enjoyment of all these 
" self-evident" rights growing out of " self-evident truths," 
since nothing is " self-evident" if this is not, that " God hath 
made of one blood all the nations of men to dwell on the face 
of all the earth," and " endowed all men with" these " rights," 
and, therefore, it would be unjust and base to leave any of 
them, among any of " the people of the United States," 
unprotected;) — "promote the general welfare" (not to make 
the welfare of an aristocratic few the end and aim of our 
social compact, at the terrible cost of the life, liberty and 
happiness of the many, as, to the disgrace of the mother 
country and other European nations, has been and is the fact ; 
for we sincerely design and we made " the Declaration" of 
our design, in 1776, to prove that Republicanism, that govern- 
ment where the people govern themselves, is better than an 
Aristocracy, an Oligarchy, a Mixed Monarchy, or a Despot- 
ism, under one or the other of which " the whole" political 
'•' creation have groaned and travailed together in pain until 
now" — it is our design to " promote the welfare" of every 
man, woman and child in the nation ; for, like God, who has 
given all men these " inalienable rights," we will be no respect- 
ers of persons, but whosoever " out of every nation," who 
shall demean himself as a good citizen, shall find in "this land 
of the free," a " home," and all of us ready to promote his 
welfare ;) — " and secure the blessings of LIBERTY to our- 
selves and our jiosterity''' (not to secure these blessings which 
we esteem and which it is in the nature of " all men" to 
esteem above price, above life itself — for we have thrown 
aside the fear of death to assert this "inalienable right of all 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 29 

men" — not to secure these blessings to a part, but to the 
whole, — not " to ourselves" only, but " to our posterity" also, 
making no distinction between them on account of their 
maternal descent, or other circumstances ;) " do ordain and 
establish this Constitution of the United States of Ame- 
rica." If, therefore, through error, any article in (his frame- 
work of government shall be found to infract or in any degree 
depart from these great and sacred principles or fail of secur- 
ing these ends, or if any statute shall be enacted inconsistent 
with them, that article shall be regarded as no part of this 
Constitution, and that law "shall be null and void." 

So reads " the Preamble of the American Constitution :" — 
so just are, therefore, the Principles of this government, and so 
solemnly avowed before a " Just God" and a jealous and an 
observing world. 

Yet, is it not true that not one of these avowed principles 
of eternal "justice" has been carried out in the administra- 
tion of the government ? " Look and see, for out of" these 
principles " ariseth no" slavery — above all, none to the mu- 
latto and other "posterity" alluded to. Shame and confusion 
of face verily belong to a nation practically so false to their 
most solemn convictions and avowal of righteous principles 
and purposes. But, as I have said, it is not so wilh the gov- 
ernment of God. " As for God, his way is perfect." Well 
may He inquire — "Are not my ways equal? — are not your 
ways unequal?" And well may He " denounce," and not be 
chargeable with uttering "mad denunciations" — "ye have 
robbed me, even this whole nation — "" Wo unto him who 
buildeth his house by unrighteousness and his chambers by 
wrong ; who useth his neighbor's service without wages, and 
giveth him not for his work." " The hire of your laborers 
who have reaped down your fields, crieth ;" " for the laborer 
is worthy of his hire." " Ye have vexed the poor and needy." 
b4 



30 REVIEW OP 

Your Rulers, " in the midst of the land, are like wolves raven- 
ing the prey, to shed blood and to destroy souls, to get dishon- 
est gain. And her Prophets have daubed them (the Rulers) 
with untempered mortar, seeing vanity and divining lies unto 
them, saying, Thus saith the Lord God, when the Lord hath 
not spoken. The people of the land have used oppression and 
exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy ; yea, 
they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully. And I sought 
for a man among them to make up the hedge and stand in 
the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it, but 
I found none. Therefore, have I poured out mine indignation 
upon them ; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath ; 
their own way have I recompensed upon their heads, saith the 
Lord God." " Shall I not be avenged upon such a people 1" 

It is thus that God deals with an oppressive and hypocritical 
nation. " The nation that will not serve thee (Christ) shall 
perish." Isa. 60 : 12. It gives me no satisfaction to believe 
that these denunciations are applicable to either the rulers, the 
prophets, or the people of my native country ; and if, after a 
calm, sober and thorough investigation of the facts, and an 
honest comparison of them with the holy and benevolent laws 
of the government of God, the reader shall be conducted to 
the conclusion, that they ought not so to be applied, let him 
visit upon my head the common denunciations of the slave- 
holder upon " Abolitionists," and 1 will not complain. " Let 
God be true, but every man a liar." " Fiat justitia, ruat 
ccelum." 

In view of the principles of " right" which I have stated 
and shown to belong essentially to the government of God, it 
does not seem to require an uncommon amount of sagacity or 
other intellectual power to determine whether the definition of 
slavery, adopted by Mr. F., does or does not contain a fatal 
sophism in the word " right" — " Slavery is the right of the 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 31 

master to the labor of another, without his contract or con- 
sent." In order to be consistent with truth, should not the 
definition read — Slavery is the condition of a person Wrong- 
fully and Unjustly held and coerced to labor for another 
without his consent or contract? — or, excluding the qualify- 
ing words, wrongfully and unjustly, let it read — Slavery is 
the condition of a person, who without being guilty of crime 
or misdemeanor, is held by force in the power of another, 
and urged by a violent motive .to labor for him, without the 
contract or consent of the former, and without reward. 

Still, Mr. Fuller's definition is the common definition of 
slavery. " Usus norma loquendi est." But, though it is 
agreeable to common usage, it should be observed that this 
usage is that originated by slaveholders and incautiously 
adopted by others, until it is heard or read by many who 
abhor slavery, without any consciousness of the inappropriate 
locality of the word " right." Probably, to such persons this 
word so used seems synonymous with authority or power. 
The absurdity however, of so using the word, will readily 
appear, if we only say — Slavery in Algiers is the right of 
Algerines to urge American citizens by a violent motive to 
labor for them, without the contract or consent of the slaves. 
Americans instantly demur at the use of the word " right" in 
such connection. They start back with indignation and 
astonishment at such a desecration of the word " right." 
Liberty is our right, and it can never become the right of oth- 
ers to wrest that right from us, for " all men are born free." 
So used it would be regarded just as incorrect as if it were 
applied to the power of the thief, and it should be said that 
theft is the " right" of one man to bear away the property of 
another, without his contract or consent and to appropriate it 
to his own use.* This is precisely Mr. Fuller's " right" of 

* See the History of the Lacedemonians. 



32 REVIEW OF 

Slavery. And yet I doubt not, even Mr. F. himself, would 
be as ready as any man to denounce such a misappropri- 
ation of the word " right," particularly if he were one of 
the citizens involved in the supposed case. In the same sense, 
murder is the " right" of the murderer to take the life of his 
fellow man. Slavery is the right of one man to wrest or 
withhold from another his liberty by force ; only this, says 
Mr. F., gently and with supreme complacency. Yes, " merely 
that," sweetly responds Mr. Wayland. 

Mr. F. seems evidently to think that he has carved down 
the huge, uncouth monster of slavery with its " abases" to the 
very innocence and beauty of a sleeping infant, when he says 
— " We believe that they" (the precepts of Jesus) " reach every 
abuse of slavery ; and condemn all intellectual, moral, and 
domestic injustice. But we do not believe that they make 
the relation itself sinful, or require, as they must do, if it be a 
crime, its prompt dissolution. * * It will not do, then, 
for you (brother Wayland) to conduct the cause as if we had 
been proved guilty and were put on our defence. This is the 
ground always taken at the North," &c. p. 166. " Slavery 
is nothing more than the condition of one who is deprived of 
political power, and does service without his contract or con- 
sent, it is true, but yet it may be, cheerfully and happily, and 
for a compensation reasonable and certain, paid in modes of 
return best for the slave himself." Miss Martineau lets light 
into a part of this statement, when she says — " I usually found 
in conversation in the South, that the idea of human rights was 
— sufficient subsistence in return for labor." 

This is all — "slavery is nothing more." I will not ask in 
the case of any other men, whether justice puts " the right" 
of making both sides of a bargain imo the hands of one man , 
the man of power, to use that right for the other party," with- 
out Ins contract or consent ;" but to Mr. F. I do say with 



FULLER ANT) WATLAND. 33 

solemn emphasis — " Thou art the man !" — if any man is to be 
held and treated thus — " nothing more." The mirror to see 
" the right" is here, — " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy- 
self. Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you 
(nothing more) do ye unto them." With this mirror in his 
hand, however, he discovers in the slavery of others " nothing 
more" than is sanctioned of God. 

But let the reader consider that no man can " consent" to 
be a slave under this definition, ardently as he may desire to 
be one, because " slavery is without the contract or consent of 
the slaves, nothing more." Equally impossible, therefore, it 
is for one, consistently with the law of Jesus Christ, to " con- 
sent or contract" to make another man a slave. God could 
not be obeyed by him, if, denying himself as He can not, He 
should require of any man such consent ; because, if the man 
were, under such requirement, to " consent or contract" to be 
a slave, " nothing more," he would not be a slave, because 
" slavery is nothing more than the condition of one who is 
deprived, &c, without his contract or consent." So Mr. 
Fuller's slaves can not " contract or consent" to be his slaves ; 
for, the moment they should make such " contract" or give 
such " consent," their condition would not be the condition 
described in his definition. It is clearly impossible for any man 
to " consent" to be in " the condition" to which " without 
consent" is essential, and, therefore, Mr. F. utters the plainest 
untruth, when he tells Mr. W ., and through him tells the 
world, that his slaves consent to be such. It they do so con- 
sent, they are not slaves, but freemen, who have contracted or 
consented to labor for him for compensation ; and yet they are, 
by the laws of South Carolina and the claim of Mr. F., his 
slaves. They are, then, slaves no slaves. 

If Mr. F. can make out a more monstrous absurdity than 
this, by piling inference upon inference, which he calls 



34 REVIEW OF 

" sorites," he may be able to show that he utters " nothing 
more" than the truth in asserting that it is the duty of any 
man to " consent" to be what, if he should consent to be, he 
would not be. With due respect for Mr. Fuller's logical abil- 
ity, I may, without arrogance, challenge his demonstration, by 
argumentum ad absurdum, a priori, a fortiori, or any other 
form of argument, of any one illegitimate inference I have 
drawn from the premises with which he has furnished me. 

And yet this talented writer (perhaps, I ought rather to say 
ingenious, for his ingenuity is evidently too much for Mr. Way- 
land to cope with) rushes with his own definition to the word 
of God, thinking to find among its moral laws some "express 
precept" requiring slaves to' submit themselves, (" consent") 
and obey their masters in all things ; whereas, if such a pre- 
cept were found there, and the slave should, out of the fear of 
God or from any other motive, " consent" to be a slave and 
" care not for it," from that moment he would not be in " the 
condition" of a slave, as described by Mr. Fuller, as for some 
time back the reader has seen. 

Observe the confidence with which, however, he appeals to 
the Scriptures and the compliment (not " denudation ?") he 
bestows on whoever may venture to confront him. " He who 
says, it" (slavery) " is a sin," he avers, " will answer to 
God whom he affronts and not to me." Certainly, " when 
contending with" such a spirit as this, I will " not bring against 
him a railing accusation," but, taking the appeal he suggests, 
I do solemnly say — '-'• The Lord rebuke thee." I do humbly 
lookup to thee, thou, who art the God of justice and love, 
— who hast forbidden every form of oppression and required 
that all men " do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with 
God," — who hast expressly commanded the oppressor to 
" let the oppressed go free and break every yoke," — who hast 
pronounced a '' woe" upon every one " who useth his neigh- 
bor's service without wages," and commandest that the em- 



FULLER AND WAtLAND. 35 

ployer shall " give unto the servant that which is just and 
equal," declaring that " the laborer is worthy of his hire" or 
" wages," — who hast declared that the time shall ccme when 
no man shall buy any more the merchandize of those who 
traffic in " the bodies and souls of men ;" — rebuke the proud : 
vindicate thine own justice and the honor oi thy throne, in 
imparting to this oppressor and to all of his associates in that 
great sin which thy holy soul abhorreth, light equal to their 
darkness ; and lead them and all of us not into temptation, 
but deliver them and us from evil, that " thy way may be 
known upon earth," and that " the man of the earth may no 
more oppress ;" — " for thine is the kingdom and the power and 
the glory, forever ; Amen." 

That righteous God, whom I thus address, has long ago 
taught me thus to pray; and in thus appealing from man, 
whose breath is in his nostrils, to Him, I always feel approved 
by Him. But who will dare approach His throne and pray 
that " Slavery" may continue one year more, or another hour ? 
God has made it my duty and that of every other man to 
exert that measure of influence with which we are invested, 
to " deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor ;" and 
I, therefore, implore His aid in accomplishing the task, while 
I humbly " consent" to enter the field at his bidding, not as His 
slave, but as " free in Christ Jesus," to labor " as under my 
great Task-Master's eye." 

In the prosecution of this duty, I shall next examine Mr. 
Fuller's scripture argument. I shall do this, by no means, for 
the purpose of proving slavery always and everywhere a sin, 
for this is already sufficiently manifest, by simply contrasting 
"the condition" of a slave, every slave, with that condition 
vouchsafed to all men by the endowment of their Creator, on 
the principle of natural, eternal, unalterable justice or right, as 
well as by explicit written revelation. My purpose is, then, 



36 REVIEW OF 

to vindicate the Sacred Scriptures, which their Author has 
placed in my hands as the only and the sufficient rule of faith 
and practice, both for myself and all men, and which He has 
made it my duty, as a minister of Christ, to explain and teach 
to my fellow men, Mr. Fuller not excepted, so far as my ability 
extends ; — to vindicate this book of God from the, imputation 
to it, that in anyway, — in its doctrines, its precepts, or the 
language by which these are communicated to mankind, it 
gives any countenance to Slavery, in any form whatever. 

Here again I am constrained to express the pain I feel on 
meeting in Mr. Fuller's Letters so much of that which I can 
not but regard as arrogant assumption and disrespectful treat- 
ment of men whose opportunities for obtaining knowledge in 
" philology and history" have been as good as his own, and 
who are prepared to examine both in open day before the 
world. 

Mr. F., moreover, deals in assertions for which he has no 
authority, touching the manner in which " The Abolitionists" 
are disposed to discuss the subject of slavery. Hear him : 
'■' The assertion just mentioned as to the inherent guilt of slav- 
ery, is the distinctive article with modern abolitionists. But 
after studying the subject in all its bearings, they have clearly 
perceived that, if the Hebrew and Greek terms rendered 
servant in our Bibles really signify slave, there is an end either 
of their dogma or of submission to the scriptures. Hence, 
after trying in vain the whole apparatus of exigetical torture, 
they have, with, I believe, much unanimity, set all philology 
and history at defiance, and resolutely deny that such is the 
import of those words." p. 167. 

The structure of this statement is designed to convey the 
implication that abolitionists have been driven to the wall by 
their antagonists, and, there being deprived of their weapons, 
particularly " philology and history," and even having these 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 37 

turned against them, they can do no more than stand and 
" defy and resolutely deny." Mr. F. believes that this is the 
common fact. There are certainly some things which even 
he can believe without a " thus saith the Lord" or any other 
evidence than such shadowy things as imagination begets. 
Are we able only to " defy and resolutely deny V 

In a philological inquiry, " what saith the scriptures]" Mr. 
F. knows that, if a copy of the Bible were put into the hands 
of a heathen man who had never heard or read of it, or any 
portion of history having a bearing on what it contains, that 
heathen would be able, from the scriptures themselves, to 
gather the mind of God in relation to all of the great princi- 
ples of the divine government, as they relate to the duties of 
man towards man. History serves to illustrate many things 
which are there established, but it establishes nothing. The 
Bible itself contains history enough, taken in connection with 
the Bible use of words, to enable the reader to understand 
what their great Author has revealed as the law of conduct 
towards God and mankind. Authentic profane history con- 
tains nothing which is contradictory of or inconsistent with 
scripture history. Since the Old Testament contains all that 
is extant of ancient Hebrew literature, it is obvious that 
Hebrew philology, whether we speak of etymology or use, is 
necessarily shut up within the limits of the Bible. 1 see in 
the fact to which allusion is here made, the wisdom of God ; 
for now, instead of leaving his religion open to perversion by 
the foisting in upon it of foreign use, he has set bounds by the 
limits of the language itself. The danger is far less in the 
case of the Greek of the New Testament, because the reli- 
gion of God having been established in the Old Testament, 
the key of interpretation is furnished within the entire Bible. 
For example, the " virtue" of the Bible is not the " virtue" of 
either the Greeks or the Romans or the Spartans," but is 

c 



38 REVIEW OF 

defined by the associated religion. In going into the exegesis 
of the few passages in the New Testament containing the 
word virtue, what scholar would seek in the writings of native 
or heathen Greeks for the meaning of Paul or Peter in their 
use of this term 1 See Philip. 4:8. 1 Pet. 2 : &. 2 Pet. 
1 : 3, 5., ct£S<nj {arete.) Here the reader is limited to the Bible, 
although numerous contemporaneous or older books exist, 
having the same word in frequent use. But in ascertaining 
the signification of Hebrew words, the limitation is more 
rigid, because no other Hebrew writings of equal age exist, 
to which it is even possible to make any appeal. 

Whether, therefore, we examine into the meaning of the 
various Greek words which in the English version of the 
Bible are rendered servant, or the single Hebrew word so 
rendered, certainly so far as God enjoins or approves the 
service, the meaning must be sought in the Bible. Who 
would think of reading Homer to ascertain the signification of 
the word " God," as applied in the Bible to Jehovah, or of this 
word Jehovah 1 ©S0£ (Theos) is often used by the Greeks, but 
the Theos of the Bible is " the unknown God" of the Greeks. 
To this philological "law and testimony" of the scriptures I, 
therefore, make my appeal. 

In the first place I shall examine the etymology and the use 
of the Hebrew word (""J]^) EBED, sometimes translated 
servant, and shall endeavor to conduct the examination in 
such a manner that the mere English reader, as well as the 
Hebrew scholar, may easily judge of the correctness of the 
results to which he may be conducted. 

I may remark here that there is to every word an etymo- 
logical or radical meaning. To illustrate my meaning, I give 
the example of the Etymon or root " Anim," frequently used 
in compound words in English. Take its sense by comparing 
the following words. 



FULLER ANB WATLAND. 39 

Anim means life, Latin anima, life ; Avim-ate,to impart 
life; anim-aiion, the action or energy of life; anim-a\, a 
creature with life ; anim-zMze , to produce life, or living 
things; anim-oshy , hatred with life, or living hatred ; anim- 
advert, to turn to or upon witli life. The radical idea of life, 
belongs to each of these words, and the variations in significa- 
tion are expressed by the adjuncts, ate — ation — al — alize — 
osity— advert. These adjuncts are the varying circumstances. 
Analogous to this is the ca&e of a noun without and with 
adjectives. Take the noun man, a good man, bad man, tall 
man, short man, white man, black man, &c. Though the 
word man applies equally well in each case of all this variety, 
it means exactly the same thing in every case, the variations 
being denoted by the adjectives. So the word laborer, — a 
good laborer, a poor laborer, a laborer for himseli, a laborer 
for another, a paid laborer, a free laborer, a slave laborer, &c. 
The word laborer means performer, simply this ; yet, by these 
qualifying words, it is applied to all these various classes of 
performers. The word boy means a male child or youth, but 
prefix the adjectives or circumstantial woids, small, large, 
young, old, and the word is applied to a great variety of per- 
sons of different ages. 

Sometimes, a word is made to signify differently by the 
single circumstance of its use by different persons. A parent 
speaking of his bey is understood to mean his son; while a 
slaveholder advertising his runaway boy, means his slave per- 
haps fifty years old. But no one will presume to assert that either 
the word.boy or the word /ru-jrer etymologically signifies a s!are. 
Now this is precisely the case with the Hebrew word EBED, 
as I shall show. Let it be observed that this noun, EBED. 
and the corresponding verb i'"^>) ABAD have the same 
orthography in Hebrew, and are distinguished only in pronun- 
ciation. God uses this word as a verb in the fourth com- 



40 REVIEW OF 

mandment (Exod. 20 and Deut. 5,) in its etymological sense, 
neither extending its scope nor contracting its meaning, nor in 
any way limiting its application, except by the time of "six 
days." " Six days shalt thou labor" [ABAD.] So the Sep- 
tuagint Greek translation has an equally general word, Spyot 
(erga,) and the Vulgate Latin, operaberis. This, with- 
out dispute, is the proper meaning of the word ABAD, 
the meaning it always has, when used absolutely or without 
qualifying circumstances. " Six days shalt thou labor" — 
thou, every person in all ages, " shalt labor," i. e. " do all thy 
work" appropriate to the six days, or for thy secular purposes. 
For these purposes " thou shalt labor," or be a laborer " six 
days" in every seven. Every person — all mankind ought so 
to labor : — no slave-labor can, therefore, be singled out and 
enjoined by the word ABAD, more than any sinful labor. 
If slaves were the persons intended, then no persons, but 
slaves, are under obligation to obey the fourth commandment, 
which probably Mr. F. himself would hardly be willing to 
admit. Such, without any other instance of its use being 
necessary, is the etymological and proper meaning of this 
verb ABAD ; and, of course, the same is the radical idea of 
the same word used as a noun, EBED, a laborer. This will 
be placed beyond exception or cavil, if we substitute the 
phrases, do labor, or be a laborer, for the word " labor" — as 
"six days shalt thou" be a laborer, or do labor. The sense is 
not altered. This word is often used as a noun with the same 
general signification : " Man goeth forth unto his work and to 
his labor." Ps. 104:23. See Prov. 12 : 9 and 11. Eccl. 
4: Sand 9. Ps90:10. Prov. 15 : 23. Neh. 4:l,&c. 

In all these and many other cases we have the etymological 
idea. The meaning, in one case, is varied by the circum- 
stance of the labor being bestowed on land for the benefit of 
imself, the owner and laborer. But nothing is here said or in 



FTJLL81 AND WAYLAXD. 41 

anyway implied of labor performed by one person for another. 
I do not deny that the word EBED the noun, or ABAD the 
verb, may be used to express the labor done for another ; but, 
in such case, the fact that it is done for another is signified by 
some phrase or circumstance connected, not by this word 
itself. This proves that the word itself never can express or 
imply that fact, but signifies only the simple and single idea of 
labor done, or to do labor, or a laborer. 

I will, therefore, consult several passages where the word 
EBED intends one who performs some species of labor 
for another, or, in other words, a servant. Gen. 24: 34. I 
am Abraham's servant or laborer. The word EBED signifies 
no more than a laborer ; but the circumstance that he says he 
is a laborer of Abraham renders it proper enough perhaps to 
translate the word into English by one which does of itself 
signify that relation, i. e. the word servant, though this word 
'-• not necessary to the idea intended, laborer being sufficient. 
Gerr. ID: 13. Issachar became a servant or laborer unto 
tribute. The words " unto tribute" designate what kind of 
laborer he should be — not a slave surely, yet, as a punish- 
ment for his sins, a part of the produce of his labor should be 
- ; tribute" money. Deut. 23 : 15. Thou shalt not deliver 
unto his master the servant or laborer which is escaped from 
his master or employer unto thee. 

1st Sam. 29: 3. Is not tins David the servant (slave?) of 
Saul the king of Israel ? Same chapter v. 9. What hast 
thou found in thy servant? (slave?) 1st Kings, 11: 2b. 
Jeroboam, Solomon's servant, (slave ?) lifted up his hand 
against the king. Jeroboam was a mighty man of valor, and 
Solomon made him ruler over all the charge of the house of 
Joseph. V. 32. Solomon shall have one tribe for my servant 
(slave ?) David's sake. Gen. 26: 24, And the Lord said — 
for my servant (slave ?') Abraham's sake. Num.12: 7. My 
c2 



42 REVIEW OF 

servant {slave ?) Moses. V. 11. And Aaron said unto 
Moses, alas, my lord. Here Moses, the Lord's servant, is 
Aaron's lord, or master, {slaveholder?) the word here ren- 
dered lord being the common word for master KupiS, {Kurie.) 

Isa. 42 : 1. Behold my servant, {slave ?) whom I uphold, 
mine elect in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my spirit 
upon him, he shall bring forth judgment unto the Gentiles. 
Here the word EBED is applied to the Son of God, as it is 
also, Zech. 6: 8. Behold, I will bring forth my servant, 
{slave?) The Branch. Now let the reader say whether, if 
the word EBED had in itself the idea of slavery, taking Mr. 
Fuller's definition of it, it would be possible so to apply the 
word as in the last case ? Let him think of applying the 
word slave to the same Adorable Personage, and the shock 
he will experience at the obvious impiety and blasphemy 
which would be inseparable from making such an application, 
will prove to him how egregious must be the blunder, or the 
ignorance, or the wickedness, which ever could make the 
Hebrew word EBED synonymous with the word slave. Nay, 
to confine ourselves within a much smaller circle, how guilty 
of disgracing the Bible would that man be accounted, who 
should translate the following passages agreeably with that 
notion. Gen. 50 : 17. "We pray thee forgive the trespass 
of the slaves of the God of thy father." Joseph might pos- 
sibly have " wept when they spake" thus " unto him," but his 
tears would have been shed for the shame he would have felt 
that his brethren had become so benighted as to think of God 
as a slaveholder and his servants as slaves. So, also, render 
1st Chron. 6 : 49, " according to all that Moses the slave of 
God had commanded :" and Daniel 6 : 20, " Daniel slave of 
the living God ;" and Job 1 : 8 and 2 : 3, "hast thou consid- 
ered my slave, Job?" and 1st Kings, 1 : 26, " But one, thy 
slave and thy slave Solomon." Were Moses and Daniel and 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 43 

Job slaves of God J and was Nathan, the prophet, a Blave ? 
and Solomon, David's son, a slave of David ] Who, then, 
are not slaves ? — not enough to be the slaveholders. 

We have seen that the etymological meaning of the word 
EBED is a laborer and nothing more, and that by the location 
of the word or the circumstances attending its use, it comes 
secondarily to be applied to one who labors or acts for anoth- 
er ; but, in no case yet adduced, can it possibly bear to be 
made synonymous with slace. It never can. I freely grant 
that it may be so connected with qualifying words or phrases, 
or so associated with circumstances, that it may be applied to 
a slave in the lowest condition. But the qualifying terms 
and the circumstances must be explicit, for, if not, the ety- 
mological being the governing meaning, the presumption 
must always be that this meaning is retained, until a varied 
meaning is clearly signified by something out of or extraneous 
to the word. That this is a law pervading and controhng v\l 
language, I need not show to even a sciolist. Every body 
knows it is so. Call it in question, and you unsettle all lan- 
guage, and render it useless and a mockery. Accordingly, 
when Noah, awaking from a state of intoxication, as we are 
told for a warning to other good men " not to look on the 
wine when it is red," but " touch not, taste not, handle not," 
when that long-tried righteous man and " preacher of right- 
eousness," awaking from a fit of drunkenness, for he had 
" drunk of the wine of his vineyard and was drunken," and 
having learned that his " younger" (not youngest) son, Ham, 
had seen him in that shameful condition and told his brethren 
— when, under these circumstances, he was filled with cha- 
grin, and would vent his feeling3 of a very natural dislike to 
the informer, he singled out one of the four sons of Ham (see 
Gen. 10 : 6,) and anathematized that one, viz. Canaan. Hiu 
chagrin moved him to pronounce on him the doom of being 



44 REVIEW OF 

a servant of low condition ; and, surely, no greater curse 
could he pronounce upon the fourth son of Ham than the 
curse of being a slave, as it is commonly admitted. As I 
shall examine this strangely misunderstood and misapplied 
passage of sacred history in its more proper place, I shall here 
only remark that the words " cursed be" and those which fol- 
low the word " servants," would seem enough to indicate 
clearly the kind of servant the speaker, at that peculiar mo- 
ment, desired his grandson Canaan might be ; and yet he 
saw that the word EBED, a laborer, would not express what 
he intended, and, therefore, he employed a form well known 
to belong to the Hebrew language, when the speaker would 
express himself with extreme emphasis, " a servant of serv- 
ants," or a low, degraded laborer, or rather, perhaps, a great 
laborer — " shall he be unto his brethren," &c. Let those who- 
prefer it, say slave, I have no objection, so far as this word 
can have any argumentative bearing. My only object now 
is to show that, if a slave were intended, it was necessary to 
use a peculiar form of words to express that idea, even in 
addition to several other words used for that purpose.* 

The case of Joseph now presents itself. The word EBED" 
does by no means prove him to have been sent to Egypt as a 
slave, for he might have been said to have gone to Egypt as 
an EBED, a servant, if, on appointment to the office of prime 
minister of Pharaoh, he had " contracted or consented" to go 
for that purpose. To prove this I have given sufficient evi- 
dence before. But the fact that he was sold to the Ishmaelit- 
ish merchants does imply that he was carried thither as a 
slave. See Gen. 37 : 28 ; also Ps. 105 : 17. A slave is suck 
an EBED as is sold, kidnapped, held to service by force, or 



* It is worthy of some notice hereafter, that the very men who defend 
slavery as a "condition" favorable to the slave and a blessing, neverthe- 
less earnestly seek its establishment in the curse of Noah. 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 45 

aa Mr. Fuller well expresses it, " urged by a violent motive to 
labor for another without his contract or consent." Mr. F. 
will find it necessary to add this definition even to the word 
servant, which, though not like the word laborer, is one who 
in some way labors for another, and yet is to be understood of 
a free person, unless circumstantially qualified and so applied 
to a slave. How much more necessary, then, to add the 
same definition to the more general word EBED, a laborer, 
in order to show that the laborer, to use the language of South 
Carolina law," is in the power of a master to whom he belongs 
as property, to all intents and purposes whatsoever," and " can 
possess nothing which does not belong to his master ;" for a 
slaveholder may hire a free laborer, who would be his serv- 
ant as strictly, while hired, as though he were his slave, and 
yet would not be his slave, and neither would it do to call 
him a slave. 

Here let attention be given to the remarkable fact, that the 
word EBED is not once translated slave in the Bible, this 
word being used only twice in the English version, — once 
Jer. 2 : 14, where it has no corresponding word in the He- 
brew, and is, therefore, printed in Italic letters ; — and once 
Rev. 18 : 13, where it corresponds with tfw^&tTWv (somatone,) 
meaning bodies. This word ought to have been rendered 
bodies, and the clause should read — bodies and souls of 
men ; undoubtedly both words together meaning slaves in this 
instance, since it requires both a body and a soul to constitute 
a slave, a man to be made an article of " merchandize," as 
men were made by " Babylon, the mother of harlots." But 
let the slaveholder know that the time is coming, when the 
prophecy contained in this I8lh chapter of the Revelation of 
John, will be fulfilled. 1 was about to make a quotation or 
two from thi3 chapter ; but, on giving it a fresh examination, 
I see it is, as a whole, so applicable to slavery and especially, 
c3 



46 REVIEW OF 

to a slavery-sustaining church, like the majority of the churches 
in America, that I think it better to commend the entire chap- 
ter to the attention of the reader ; only addressing all profes- 
sors of Christianity in the words of the great angel by whose 
glory the earth v/as enlightened, and who cried mightily with 

a strong voice — " Babylon the great is fallen come out 

of her, my people, that ye may not be partakers of her sins, 
and that ye receive not of her plagues." If God thus enjoins, 
who shall dare disobey 1 Will Elder Fuller? 

The word Slavery not being in the Bible, I shall proceed to 
examine the words which are by advocates of slavery made 
to signify slavery, as servitude, service, serve, servile, bond- 
age, bond-servants, bond-maid, man-servant, maid-servant, 
&c. Servitude is used but twice. 2 Chron. x. 4, ease the 
grievous servitude of thy father — the heavy labor, &c. , Kasha 
being the qualifying word. Lam. i. 3, because of great servi- 
tude, great labor, &c, Eaba being the qualifying word. 
Service is used many times. A few instances will be suffi- 
cient. Gen. xxix. 27, for the service (labor,) thou shalt serve 
(perform or labor) with (for) me. xxx. 26, for whom I have 
served (labored for,) thee. Exod. i. 14. And they made 
their lives bitter with hard bondage (labor,) in mortar and in 
brick, and in all manner of service (labor,) wherein they 
made them serve (labor,) with rigor (tyranny, oppression.) 
Ezra vi. 18, for the service of (labor for) God. Jer. xxii. 13. 
Wo unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness* — that 
useth his neighbor's service (labor,) without wages, (or pay- 
ment for it,) and giveth him not for his work. It is sufficient 
to add that this noun and the verb serve, are in all cases used 
in perfect keeping with the word servant, all in Hebrew being 
of the same root, and in no one instance expressing, or imply- 
ing, within themselves, the idea of slavery, that idea always 
being suggested by the attending circumstances, wherever it 



FULLER AND WAYLANP. 47 

is associated with the word EBED, ABAD, &c. So also 
the word servile means laborious, but by no means slavish ; 
since, when " servile work" was prohibited on certain sacred 
days, slaves were not addressed, but the people at large. See 
Lev.xxiii. 7, 8, Num. xxviii., &,c. 

Gen. xliv. 33. Let thy servant abide instead of the lad, 
a bondman. The circumstances make it proper to translate 
the word EBED in this passage, hist servant, and secondly 
bondman. When alluding to himself Judah used the word 
EBED, by way of respect to his superior, as though holding 
himself in readiness to do labor for him, if commanded ; and, 
when he proposes to substitute himself for Benjamin, the idea 
is that he will remain in labor or service for Joseph. These 
circumstances led the translators to use the two words servant 
and bondman for the one Hebrew word EBED, which fact 
evinces the necessity of taking into account all the circum- 
stances attendant on a word, in order to secure an accurate 
and discretive translation. 

It is clear, that the word bondman can mean nothing more 
than servant may mean ; though as the Egyptians held slaves, 
the word EBED is by this fact, sometimes understood to 
mean such a servant as is a slave. The servant of John C. 
Calhoun is presumed to be a slave, for the same reason ; 
whereas the servant of Daniel Webster is presumed to be a 
freeman, because this gentleman is not a slaveholder. 

By all the foregoing facts, in the various uses of the word 
EBED, we are conducted to a truth essential to the correct 
decision of the question at issue, viz : whether the Bible, in 
the words servant, bondman, &,c, contains the authority for 
holding men in slavery ? The truth is that nothing can be 
determined for or against the practice by the Hebrew word 
EBED, alone, of which the English words servant, bondman, 
&c. are the translation. This is all I need to show, in order 
c4 



48 REVIEW OF 

to destroy the argument for slavery, founded on the supposi- 
tion that the " philology" of the Scriptures necessarily teaches 
that slavery is of divine authority ; and this I cheerfully sub- 
mit to the judgment of candid men, as settled against whoever 
desires to find in the Hebrew word EBED itself, the idea, or a 
" cofor"of the idea of slavery. 

Now, as the Greek word SouXog is used in the Septuagint 
translation of the Old Testament, and in the New Testament, 
in the same general manner, with the single exception that its 
etymological idea is that of the word servant — simply a laborer 
for another person, instead of the broader meaning of EBED 1 , 
a laborer, whether for himself or another, I need only refer to 
a few instances of its use to show that it has the general mean- 
ing I speak of, and the advocate of slavery may find himself 
stripped of his Greek armor as he is of his Hebrew. 

The following will, I think, accomplish that end. 1 Sam. 
xxix. 3. David the servant (doulos) of Saul. Dan. vi. 20. 
Daniel, servant (doulos) of the living God. Exod. xiv. 31, 
the Lord and his servant (tkerapone) Moses. Job xlii. 7, as 
my servant (therapone) Job. Isa. xlii. 1, Jacob my servant 
(pais,) lii. 13, my servant (pais) shall deal prudently. Zeclr. 
iii. 8, my servant (doulos) the Branch. 1 Sam. iii. 9. Speak, 
Lord, for thy servant (doulos) heareth. 1 Kings viii. 28. Yet 
have thou respect unto the prayer of thy servant (doulos.) 
Dan. iii. 26. Ye servants (douloi) of the Most High God. 
Acts xvi. 17. These servants (douloi) of the Most High God. 
Rev. vii. 3, sealed the servants (douloi) of our God. Rom. i. 1 . 
Paul a servant (doulos) of Jesus Christ. 2 Tim. ii. 24, the 
servant (doulos) of the Lord must not strive. 2 Pet. i. 1. Si- 
mon Peter a servant (doulos) of Jesus Christ. Jude i. 1. 
Jude the servant (doulos) of Jesus Christ. Rev. i. 1. The 
revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to show to 
his servants (douloi) — signified it by his servant (doulos) John. 
Can doulos intend slave here ? These could never have 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 49 

been the uses of the Greek word doulos, if the radical idea or 
meaning had been a slave, as any one may satisfy himself, 
who will attempt to translate, in all or any part of the pas- 
sages quoted, this word, by the word slave or slaves. But the 
radical idea being servant in its unrestricted sense, it is appro- 
priate when applied to freemen, and even to Jesus Christ 
himself. The use of the word in 1 Cor. vii. 22, is so strik- 
ingly illustrative of the views T have given, that I can not 
omit its quotation entire. " He that is called, being a servant, 
is the Lord's freeman; likewise, also, he that is called, being 
free, is Christ's servant — not slave, I think. If, in the first 
clause, the word servant, (dvulos) means a slave, this can not 
be true of it at the close of the sentence. 

The word may, by associated circumstances, be applied to 
every species of servants ; but the attempt to attach to it the 
meaning of slave, as its intrinsic signification, is like finding 
authority for idol worship in the word God, because this 
word is sometimes, and very often, applied to the gods of the 
heathen, which are vanity and a lie. The word God, in the 
Bible, is always to be taken as meaning Jehovah, for the rea- 
son that it is in the Bible or book of the true God, unless its 
connection divert it to something else. So, though more em- 
phatically, it is with the Hebrew EBED,a laborer, and doulos, 
a servant, and every other general term used in the Bible ; it 
must be taken in its independent or leading sense, until limited 
or varied by associated circumstances, and then, the strongest 
leading circumstance is, that it is in the Bible, and is to have 
the Bible sense, unless otherwise defined by special connected 
circumstances. In pursuing the review of Mr. Fuller's argu- 
ment, I shall expect to find that argument running parallel with 
this principle, or exercise the liberty of exposing its depar- 
ture from it. Of this he can not reasonably complain. 

What he intends by charging Abolitionists with setting at 
defiance all history, as well as philology, is too obscure to 



50 REVIEW OF 

allow of more than a very faint conjecture. If his imagina- 
tion has seen any of us even disposed to deny that slavery did 
exist, and extensively prevail as far back as the times of the 
apostles, or Moses, or even Abraham, he has certainly expe- 
rienced a singular hallucination. In what of all the teachings 
of history, however, does he get proof that Abraham was a 
slaveholder ? or Isaac 1 or Jacob ? or Joseph 1 or Moses ? or 
Joshua? or Samuel] or David ? or Solomon ? or Isaiah? or 
Malachi ? or Joseph the husband of Mary ? or Jesus Christ ? 
or Peter? or Paul? or any of the patriarchs, or prophets, or 
apostles, or primitive Christians ? Here I do confess myself 
ignorant of any historical proof that those men of God were, 
any of them, slaveholders. In order to be such, their servants 
must have been " urged by a violent motive to labor for them 
without contract or consent." " It will not do then, for" Mr. 
Fuller " to conduct the cause, as if" Abraham and the rest 
"■ had been proved guilty of holding slaves, and were put on" 
their " defense. This is the ground always taken at the" 
South, " and because" Northern " Christians reply with the 
Bible in their bands, they are misunderstood, p. 166. " He 
is bound to make out" his " case, and prove" them "guilty."' 
I do " resolutely deny" that they were, and that he has shown 
a particle of proof of the fact ; but he has " resolutely" asserted 
that they were, and Mr. Wayland, rather his coadjutor than 
antagonist, has admitted it, and, also, that the Abolitionists 
are just as guilty as Mr. Fuller describes them. p. 49. 

I cheerfully admit that Abraham had servants, but not 
slaves ; and, as I am left to iC prove a negative," I shall endea- 
vor to ascertain the circumstances which preclude the propriety 
of calling Abraham's servants slaves; and then go on to oth- 
ers who stand accused of the same practice. " History" gives 
sjs some information of the nature of the patriarchal govern- 



FULLER AND WAYLANP. 5 1 

ment ; and the sacred " history" of Abraham is by no means 
silent touching the relations he sustained to his servants. 

What I shall prove, is, that the subjects of the ancient 
patriarchal government were voluntary, and, therefore, free 
subjects, not slaves. I shall, in the first place, consider what 
the Scriptures say on this subject. No proof is needed that 
the entire power for enforcing the authority of a patriarch, 
was limited to himself in his own proper person ; i. e., there 
was no power behind himself, like the power of state govern- 
ment standing ready, in case any of his subjects should mutiny 
or rebel, to suppress the mutiny or rebellion, and coerce them 
into obedience. If any analogy is to be found between the 
patriarch with his subjects, and the slaveholder with his slaves, 
it must be sought in supposing a case, which is, after all, 
essentially unlike that of any slaveholder in the world. The 
supposition is, that a slaveholder asserts his authority over his 
slaves without any state law giving him authority so to do, 
or to inflict punishment on them for a disobedience of his 
will. As though a slaveholder were to take with him a thou- 
sand or more slaves, men, women and children, and were to 
remove to some region uninhabited and claimed by no gov- 
ernment whatever, say some island so circumstanced, or if 
there were inhabitants, they were such as himself and his 
slaves, and these acknowledged no allegiance to any govern- 
ment, and sought protection from none ; neither had they 
combined to form any compact among themselves, but, at 
most, entered into a confederacy, not to keep each other's 
subjects in subjection, but to strengthen themselves against a 
common foreign enemy, or rather to preserve peace between 
the people or tribes, lest they should commit depredations 
upon each other's property, or interfere with each other's 
rights. See the case of Abraham and Abimclcch, Gen. xxi., 
cf Abraham and Lot, Gen. xiii., Isaac and Abimelech, Gen. 



52 REVIEW OF 

xxvi., Abraham and Lot, Gen. xiv. 12 — 16, Abraham and 
Melchizedek, same chap. 18 — 24. Each slaveholder is the 
sole governor of his slaves. Our slaveholder removes into 
such an island or other place, and there, unaided of course, he 
undertakes to " urge his slaves by violent motives," as the 
whip, the stocks, &c," to labor for him without their contract 
or consent." Let it be "just such a slaveholder as" Mr. Ful- 
ler — nay, let it be himself. Now, since he says that the slave- 
holder's right " does not deprive the slave of any right which 
is justly his, as an immortal, intelligent, moral, social, and 
fallen creature," [see p. 152,] let him collect his slaves around 
him, and distinctly make known to them his views on these 
points, and then add, that no man,Zfte Bible tells him, ought 
ever to be entrusted with irresponsible power, and, therefore, 
he does not consider the perpetuation of slavery proper, even 
if it be possible, [see p. 157,] but that these are his slaves, 
and by the Bible, rightfully such ; that he intends to hold 
them as such, and to "urge them by a violent motive to labor 
for him. without their contract or consent, it is true," and that 
he shall compensate them for their labor in modes best suited 
to their conditions, he being the sole judge of these things. 
He then orders a part of them to one spot, and others to 
another spot, to cultivate cotton, rice, corn or other crop. But, 
instead of obeying these orders, they begin to demur, and " as 
intelligent, moral, social, and fallen creatures," they assert 
the right to regulate their own "social" relations, and proceed 
to depose him from the dignity and authority he has asserted 
over them. This is quite as supposable as any other part of 
the supposition. To the use of what " violent motive" will 
Mr. Fuller resort to " urge" them " to labor for him V He will, 
as a slaveholder, seize the common" violent motive," the whip, 
and deal about him the punishment required in a case of so 
urgent necessity ; surely, no case of greater necessity can be 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 53 

imagined. Among his thousand slaves, are "three hundred 
and eighteen trained servants." These are his soldiers on 
whom he relies for protection against the neighboring slave- 
holders, among whom he has, like Abraham, come to dwell. 
Shall hs call out these soldiers, in this emergency, to enforce 
submission ? " Servants, obey your masters in all things." 
Since God, by an apostle, has thus explicitly enjoined obedi- 
ence on " slaves'' (as Mr. Fuller renders the word " servants,") 
and so conferred " the right" of " urging them to labor by a 
violent motive," Mr. Fuller must use the power (in this extreme 
case, if ever,) and he does, like Abraham, " arm his trained 
servants, three hundred and eighteen men," and command 
them to assist him in reducing the rebels to submission. Like 
the servants of Abraham, they are all armed with bows and 
arrows, or, like the soldiers of modern times, with muskets. 
They must make a deadly onslaught upon those rebel slaves, 
if they attack them. But, to the amazement of their kind 
master, (perhaps, I ought rather to say, to the amazement of 
Mr. Fuller now,) no rebels are to be found, except the women 
and children of these three hundred and eighteen soldiers, for 
these very soldiers are, themselves, the mutinous and rebellious 
slaves ] Shall they fire upon their own wives and children 1 
Sad necessity this ! since Mr. Fuller is so faithful to the " do- 
mestic relations" of his slaves, and would defend them at 
every hazard. 

But who shall reduce the rebels, even though the women 
and children should all be put to death by their husbands, and 
fathers, and brothers ? Why, these soldiers must now turn 
their weapons on themselves ; for obedience must be enforced, 
where God has by his " Spirit expressly authorized slavery," 
and required the slave to obey his master, even though he be 
" froward." So the three hundred and eighteen slaves, learn- 
ing, from their kind master, their duty to God and him, first 



54 REVIEW OF 

destroy their waves and children, and then themselves. So 
their master, Mr. Fuller, is obeyed, and stands alone trium- 
phant over the rebels, still holding aloft with becoming dignity 
the ensign of his authority, and the " violent motive" by which 
the fearful rebellion has been quelled, viz. a long whip. The 
Bible in his left hand gave the authority, and the " violent 

motive" in his right hand did what ? Drive his soldiers to 

fight and kill each other 1 But " Abraham held slaves," says 
Mr. Fuller, and " Abraham held slaves," assents Mr. Way- 
land, and this Northern man wonders that any one should 
doubt it — he would " almost as soon doubt whether God gave 
the Moral Law." [p. 49.] I submit to the reader, whether 
the analogy between the case of the slaveholder and Abraham 
is so entire as to remove all doubt of that patriarch being a 
slaveholder. Amazed as Mr. Fuller and Mr. Wayland may 
be at the absurdities involved in the above supposed case, to 
themselves, and not to me, they must ascribe those absurdities, 
for they unavoidably result from any and every attempt like 
theirs, to run the alleged parallel between slaves and the 
servants of Abraham, out to its legitimate consequences. 
They, probably, supposed there was a parallel. Abraham had 
servants, so has Mr. Fuller. So, without stopping to inquire 
whether those servants were alike, hoiding the same relation 
to their respective masters, or being in the same or a like 
condition, they assumed all this, and in the parallel run out, 
in one particular, I have assumed the same thing, and no 
more. 

What, then, are the circumstances attending the case of 
Abraham's servants, which determine their condition, not as 
slaves, but as free, voluntary subjects of the patriarchal govern- 
ment 1 I have already alluded to some of them. One is the 
fact, that Abraham was sustained by no power foreign to him- 
self; whereas, every slaveholder in the United States is sua- 



FULLER AND WAYLAID. *5 

tamed by the entire power of his state government, backed 
by the power of all the other slaveholding states, and, if 
the South are correct in their claims, by the united power of 
all the states in the land, and even by the power of all the 
nations of the world who hold confederacy with this nation. 

Again : Abraham's " trained servants," three hundred and 
eighteen in number, so far from being slaves, are, by this very 
word " trained," freemen, the word for " servants" not being 
found in the corresponding Hebrew. What are we to under- 
stand by " trained" but soldiers trained? If you will have 
them trained soldier slaves, then furnish Abraham with the 
power to hold them as slaves by his single right arm, and to 
train them as soldiers, and then " to urge them by a violent 
motive without their contract or consent," to go forth at his 
bidding to fight his battles. 

If Mr. Fuller should claim that Abraham's soldiers were his 
Captives taken in war, on the strength of the word nishba, 
sometimes rendered in this sense, he must show that our trans- 
lators were wrong in using the word " trained," and that 
Abraham, by his own unassisted power, was able both to take 
three hundred and eighteen men captives, and hold them as 
slaves, which would be a still more absurd supposition than 
that in the parallel I drew just now, as it involves the power 
of reducing freemen to slavery, which calls for more power 
than to hold them when reduced ; and Mr. Fuller tells us he 
would as firmly resist as any man this atrocious procedure. 
It would make Abraham a mighty '* kidnapper," as well as a 
slaveholder. 

Again : the fact that Abraham entrusted the courtship 
of a wife for his son Isaac, to one of his men, called, in- 
deed, a servant, as he truly was, and as Paul and James 
and Jude were servants of Jesus Christ, without being hia 
dares, I think, and the gentlemanly manner in which that 

D 



56 REVIEW OF 

servant executed that important errand, as well as the great 
respect with which Eleazer was treated by Rebecca, who 
called him " lord," drawing the water for his camels with her 
own fair hands, instead of permitting or commanding him to 
draw it, and his treatment by her family during his visit, pretty 
clearly indicate, nay, absolutely prove to every candid reader 
of the Bible, (do they not ?) that, instead of being a slave, he 
occupied in the patriarchate the position of prime minister, 
being a native of Damascus, and no doubt having accepted 
the appointment as cheerfully as Daniel Webster did the 
Secretaryship offered him by President Harrison. In case of 
Abraham's death without issue, some servant was to succeed 
to the station of Abraham. " And Abraham said, Behold, to 
me thou hast given no seed : and, lo, one born in my house 
is my heir." This man, " Eleazer of Damascus," is by Abra- 
ham denominated his " steward," which is equivalent to 
" Chancellor of the Exchequer" in the British government. 
This man a slave ? Ste Gtn. xv. 2, 3. If so, call Abraham 
a slaveholder, not else, unless you can see good reason for 
making any other of Abraham's servants to differ so essen- 
tially from this, that, while he was a high officer, as well as a 
freeman, the rest were slaves. Who will show proof of such 
distinction ] 

But we may look beyond the single case of Abraham, to 
Isaac, and Jacob, and " the twelve patriarchs." Were these 
men slaveholders'? Does either Mr. Fuller or Mr. Wayland 
believe they were '? And yet both these teachers of divine 
truth have said they were. Was Jacob a slaveholder ? Both 
he and his father had servants ; but were these their slaves, 
when we behold the master, Jacob, hard at work with his 
own hands for a long series of years, in the serviqe of Laban, 
whom he is said to have " served ?" There is the same evi- 
dence that Jacob was a slave of Laban, as that the servants 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 07 

of Abraham were his slaves. The word EBED is applied to 
him and to them. Again, therefore, I may ask, who were 
not slaves, even up to the highest officers of state ? — up to the 
prophets and apostles and the Lord Jesus himself ! Men 
reputed for wisdom are certainly liable now, as in the days of 
Solomon, to have in their character a sprinkling of folly. 
Eccl. x. 1 and 7. And now let us look at " the twelve patri- 
archs." See them going to Egypt again and again for corn, 
not sending slaves for it, as slaveholders would ; and at length 
bringing down into Egypt their father, and their wives and 
children ; and yet, not a word is said of their selling slaves 
even in their extremity, rather than to sell themselves, as the 
best and kindest of slaveholders were never known to fail of 
doing ; for Mr. Fuller and all other advocates of slavery rely 
much on the words, " for he is his money," in support of their 
" right" to their slaves as their "property." If this phrase 
does support that alleged " right," and if the twelve patriarchs 
held such properly, we should have heard of the sale of " that 
species of property" in that extremity. But no : they were 
shepherds, and came into Egypt unattended by any such 
u property." Yet we hear nothing of the abolition of slavery 
among them. If, as is probable, they, like their ancestors, had 
'•'servants," free laborers in their patriarchate, they would 
naturally leave those hired laborers to return to their own 
people and business. But to dismiss slaves, whose bodies and 
souls would have sold high in slaveholding and slave-trading 
Egypt, and go down like plain, unattended, self-laboring 
Yankees, and bargain with the government, not with slave- 
holders after all, to sell themselves for a good consideration to 
hibor, as freemen, not to allow themselves to be kidnapped by 
the powerful Egyptians and " urged by a violent motive to 
labor for them without their contract or consent," — all these 
facta utterly forbid the indulgence of the idea that the " Patri- 



KR 



REVIEW OF 



archs" were slaveholders, or sustained any relation to then- 
servants, other than that which freemen may, and often do, 
sustain to each other. In this view all is harmonious and 
consistent ; but the notion that these laborers were slaves, 
involves, as we have already seen, the greatest inconsistencies 
and the grossest absurdities. 

I may here call attention to the practice, divinely enjoined, 
of applying to the servants, equally with the children of the 
patriarchs, the right of circumcision, that " sign" of God's cove- 
nant with Abraham and his oath unto Isaac, and which he con- 
firmed unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting or 
perpetual covenant. See 1 Chron. xvi., and Ps. cv. 

Let the reader examine the 13th, 15th, and 17th chapters 
of Genesis, and he will see that, in regard of both temporal 
and spiritual good embraced in that covenant, the posterity of 
Abraham were placed on perfect equality with all those per 
pons who, by birth or purchase, became members of their 
families. Gen. xvii. " This is my covenant — every manchild 
among you shall be circumcised — it shall be a token of the 
covenant betwixt me and you — every manchild in your gen- 
erations, he that is born in the house or bought with money 
of the stranger, which is not of thy seed — and my covenant 
shall be in your llesh for an everlasting (perpetual) covenant, 
— and the uncircumcised manchild shall be cut off from 
(denied the privileges of) his people ; he hath broken (not 
conformed to the terms of ) my covenant. And Abraham 
took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and 
ail that were bought with his money, every male among the 
men of Abraham's house, and circumcised them." 

This covenant, whatever spiritual blessings it secured and 
emblematically signified by the earthly, gave to all, who 
received the " token" of the covenant, a right to habitation and 
possession in the land promised to Abraham in it. See Gen, 



FUr.Lr.R AXD WAYI.AXl). 5'J 

xiii. and xv. All were to be subjects of the patriarchate, or, 
as we should say, " naturalized citizens ;" but even a son of a 
patriarch could have no inheritance there, if he bore not the 
" token."' According to the practice under the patriarchate, a 
servant or subject stood as " heir apparent" until the patriarch 
had a son ; the heirship ihen fell to him, and the servant or 
subject remained, if he chose, the subject but not the slave of 
the son. How sacredly all the natural rights of the subjects, 
who became such by being " bought with money of the hea- 
then round about," were established and guarded under the 
Mosaic law, we shall see, when we come to the consideration 
of that law. The reader should assume nothing in advance 
of scriptural instruction, but bear along with him what of 
truth he has gathered up from the Abrahamic covenant which 
continued in force ever afterwards among that people, and, as 
the constitution of government, pervaded and controlled and 
illustrated all their laws, whatever outward form the govern- 
ment assumed, under the patriarchs, under Moses as God's 
viceroy, or " the Judges" which the people elected, or the 
kings which God consented to place over them. If they dis- 
regarded that constitution in their practice, as they often did. 
it still remained in force, and their disregard of it was always 
accounted sinful. It is sufficient here to say that under that 
constitution God was always to be acknowledged as their 
sovereign, the source of all authority and law. Whatever 
harmonized with his will was right, and whatever was more 
or less inconsistent with his will was wrong. The specific 
forms of government might be indefinitely varied, but the prin- 
ciples of impartial justice and fraternal benevolence could 
undergo no change. 

The patriarchal government was not a novelty in the family 
of Abraham. " The prevailing form of government during 
this period" (before the flood) savs Ynhn, '' was probablv the 

d2 



6U REVIEW OF 

patriarchal. At first (after the flood,) the new race of men 
seem to have acknowledged the patriarchal (fatherly) authority 
of Noah and his lineal descendants. But after the dispersion 
which followed the unsuccessful attempt to build the tower of 
Babel, Nimrod, the celebrated hunter and hero, laid the found- 
ation of the Babylonian Kingdom. The kingdom of Assyria 
was established soon after. The reign of Menes, the first 
king of Egypt, commenced about the middle of the second 
century after the flood. About the same time a second (Afri- 
can) kingdom was founded at Thebes, and about twenty 
years later, a third at Memphis. In the tenth generation 
after Noah, while Abraham dwelt in Canaan (from 367 to 
467 after the flood,) there were in that country several small 
states and kingdoms which had been founded by the descend- 
ants of Canaan, the son of Ham." Among these, though in 
the land of promise as in a strange land, Abraham lived, 
"dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob," Heb. xi. 9 ; 
though God " gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so 
much as to set his foot on." Acts vii. 5. These facts prove 
any thing but slavery existing in the family of the patriarch. 
Call him king, chief, captain, over voluntary followers or sub- 
jects, but not a slaveholder " urging" three hundred and 
eighteen men " to labor for him without their contract or con- 
sent." And yet Mr. F. boldly asserts that he was a slave- 
holder, and Mr. W. meekly admits that " Abraham and the 
patriarchs had held slaves many centuries before" the time of 
Moses, and " wonders that any should have the hardihood to 
deny so plain a matter of record," adding — " I should almost 
as soon deny the delivery of the ten commandments to Moses." 
Verily, the poor abolitionists are not the only people who are 
" almost" ready to give up the Bible as no revelation from 
God, rather than give up their darling opinions ! Here we 
have " limitations of human responsibility," wiih an einpha- 



FUILKR AND WAYLAND. 61 

■sis But I am talking out of place, some may think ** out of 
order," of Mr W., when I should speak only of Mr. Fuller ; 
yet the assimilations between the two writers are, in fact, so 
intimate that I am " almost" liable to mistake one for the 
other. And why should I not, when Mr. W. says — " I fear, 
with you," (did Mr. F. "fear ?") " that the emancipation of the 
slaves in the West Indies is not accomplishing what was 
expected. * * * But aside from this case, all history 
informs us that absolute liberty" (Is that the liberty to which 
the British slaves were restored in the West Indies 1) " is too 
violent a stimulant to be safely administered to a race who 
have long been bred in slavery. All I ask is that the views 
you entertain, so far as I understand them, be carried out into 
practice." And yet, in the very same letter, he commented on 
the doctrine set forth by Mr. F. in the following very severe 
but very merited terms — " This doctrine is really more alarm- 
ing than any that I have ever known to be inculcated on this 
subject. It authorizes them to enslave us, just as much as it 
authorizes us to enslave them." Is this one of Mr. Fuller's 
" views," Mr. W. so ardently desires to have " carried out into 
practice V Why so " alarmed," then 1 Ah, it would be 
"alarming," if Mr. F. really meant to involve people of light 
complexion in the " doctrine ;" but, since it is presumable he 
docs not, his " views" may safely to " us" " be carried out into 
practice," and " all I ask is that" they may be. " We can 
both unite in the effort to render all slaveholders in this 
ccuntry.;'e/s* such masters as YOU." 

I can not but ask — is this the triumph of Mr. W. over Mr. 
F., so loudly trumpeted through the land by certain Baptists ? 
This the man who has come forth to deliver the cause of abo- 
lition from the unwise treatment of the ultraists ? This the 
only book which has ever been written in the right spirit and 
with the adequate ability, setting the truth in so strong a 



G2 REVIEW OF 

light before the face of Mr. F. and all the slaveholders, that 
they must be convinced of their sinfulness and repent and 
put away their slavery 1 Brethren, had you read these " let- 
ters" before you made up your minds that Mr. W. had settled 
the question against slavery forever ? I shall need express no 
opinion of these letters. They will speak for themselves and 
for me, before we get through with them. Mr. Fuller writes 
quite as true a commentary on the real value of Mr. Way- 
land's argument, as any ultraist would desire to see, when he 
says — " All half truths are more pernicious than pure false- 
hood." 

The Mosaic law comes next under consideration. 

Mr. F. says — "1. Whatever the holy God has expressly 
sanctioned among any people can not be in itself a sin. 

2. God did expressly sanction slavery among the Hebrews. 

3. Therefore slavery can not be in itself a sin." 

Mr. W. had said — " This grant was made to one people 
only, the Hebrews. It had respect to one people only, the 
Canaanites." Mr. Fuller's reply to this point is absolutely 
unanswerable, if Mr. Wayland's admission is correct. " Not 
so," says Mr. F., "strangers sojourning among the Hebrews, 
might be held in bondage as well as the heathen around - r 
and Hebrews might, in your own words, ' be held in slavery 
for six years;' and they might, by their consent, (?) become 
slaves for life. Be it remembered, too, that, long before this, 
the patriarchs held slaves and not under any grant. c Abime- 
lech (?) took sheep, and oxen, and men servants, and maid 
servants, and gave them unto Abraham.' Gen. xx. 14. Pha- 
raoh, too, enriched him with sheep, and oxen, and he-asses, 
and men servants, and maid servants." Then, after quoting 
an opinion of " M. Henry," the last writer ever to be quoted 
as authority, where any case of doubt exists, he introduces the 
syllogism I have already quoted. 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 63 

There can be no reply to Mr. F., if only " Abraham and 
the patriarchs held slaves," and if God gave the Jews, by Moses, 
•'special directions" to hold slaves, as Mr. W. had granted. 
The only possible way of escaping the difficulty (if after all 
there is any difficulty,) is to show that both writers are alike 
in error. The kind of servitude under the patriarchate has 
been examined, and we found ali freemen and not slaves. 
The gifts of Abimelech and Pharaoh to Abiaham, therefore, 
constitute no difficulty. I could receive the gift of all Mr. 
Fuller's numerous slaves, and of all the slaves in the United 
States, for the purpose of doing as Abraham did, viz : to carry 
them out of slavery into freedom. Neither Abimelech nor 
Paraoh was a patriarch, but the one," king of Gerar, and the 
other, of Egypt." The word patriarch is used only four times 
in the Bible, and then only in the New Testament. It is 
there applied only to Abraham and the twelve sons of Jacob, 
and once to David. Still, from what we are told of Isaac and 
Jacob, we infer that they held that station. David, though, 
indeed, a king, is once, by way of respect, not to designate 
his office, called, " the patriarch David." Acts ii. 29. 

But, I believe, Abimelech and Pharaoh are never regarded 
as patriarchs, for they held authority of an entirely different 
character. If, therefore, they were slaveholders and gave 
away slaves, these facts are neither proof nor presumptive 
evidence that the patriarch Abraham in accepting these gifts 
became a slaveholder; for, his former subjects being free, 
these would naturally fall into the same condition. None of 
the patriarchs are ever said to have given away servants, nor 
to have sold any, unless we except the case of Joseph. 

The sons of Jacob in selling Joseph to the Ishmaelites,are, I 

think, usually and justly considered to have set an example 

for Judas Iscariot, rather than for Christians. This is the 

only instance among them of selling a man or any human be- 

d3 



64 REVIEW OF 

ing ; and no instance of such a transaction is recorded of Mo- 
ses or of any of the Israelites, of his or any subsequent period ; 
neither is any permission so to do given by the covenant of 
God with Abraham, nor in the Levitical or Mosaic law, nor 
afterwards. But under this law, they might " buy" servants; 
and they did, sometimes, like Isaac and Jacob, " buy" wives, 
but not slaves. To buy a servant is a very different matter 
from buying and selling men. Few, perhaps, would blame 
me for buying all the slaves of the South ; many Northern pro- 
slavery men might think me doing a good business as an abo- 
litionist, if I bought them into liberty. So the mere buying of 
servants does not necessarily imply the act of enslaving them. 
But to " buy men to sell again," is a " merchandize" in " the 
bodies and souls of men," and this God abhors, (see Rev. xviii : 
11, 12,) because it involves injustice or the wresting from men 
their rights, which sin may not be involved in merely buying 
men or women, and is not, where there is equal freedom on 
both parties in making the bargain, the payment, of course, 
being made to the man sold. So a man may sell himself and 
his wife and children together, without being guilty of injus- 
tice, as was the fact in the families of Jacob and his sons. 
But this a slave never does and never can do. Jesus bought 
us off from sin by his most precious blood ; but justice, truth, 
benevolence, all forbid that he should sell us back into sin 
again. So I may justly buy men off from some punishments 
threatened by government ; but 1 should not. Therefore, have 
the right, at my option, to sell them again, though in some sense 
they would be mine, — they are my " money" i. e., an equiv- 
alent for my money. So I may justly buy a minor and pay 
his father for him, so far as he has a right to the labor or service 
of his son ; but, without a special agreement, I can not, by 
either the law of God or the statutes of any righteous human 
government, sell him to another. And then, I can not buy 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 65 

him of his father to be mine after he has reached his majority, 
for the father's right to dispose of him ceases with the minor- 
ity of the child. Whereas, if, as Mr. Fuller asserts, parental 
authority and slaveholding power are one and the same thing, 
or perfectly alike, the child belonging to the father in his mi- 
nority, the father holds, under God, the right to hold or sell 
him after he is of age as he did before. It any man may in- 
nocently hold that son as a slave after he is twenty-one, the 
father has this right, before any other man, and may inno- 
sently hold his son as a slave " forever." 

If the father by divine right does hold his son as his slave 
during his minority, then no other man can hold that son as 
his slave at the same time ; and, therefore, the colored fathers 
at the South have this right in advance of their masters, and 
may forbid their masters to hold these sons as their slaves. 
They " cannot serve two masters." Or will Mr. F. relieve 
himself from this dilemma by pretending that the slave father 
has no parental right in his son, on account of a higher claim 
of the master ? Then slavery inevitably interferes with and 
destroys the " domestic relations" which Mr. F. himself de- 
clares must always be held inviolate. He says to Mr. W. — 
" You affirm that the right of the master is irreconcilable with 
the right of the slave to the blessings of moral and intellectual 
cultivation, and the privileges of domestic society, which I 
deny. * * Nor does the absence of the contract or consent of 
the slave, nor the right of transfer (the right to buy and sell the 
slave) at all alter the nature and extent of the masters right, 
more than in the case of a hired servant. The case is analo- 
gous to that of parents and children. A father," (is this a slave 
father ? I see not but that it must be,) — " a father" {any father,) 
" has the right to the services of his child during minority, with- 
out his contract or consent, and he may transfer that right, as 
in case of apprenticeship. * * This is the true light in 
d4 



66 REVIEW OF 

which Christianity would have masters regard themselves. 
A right lo the services of a man, without his contract or con- 
sent, does not justify a wrong done to his mind or soul, or domes- 
tic relations. Slavery may exist without interfering with any 
man's natural rights, except" (a trifling exception it would be 
in your own case, would it not, my friend Fuller?) "except 
personal freedom" — that is, the " urging one man to labor for 
another, by a violent motive without his contract or consent." 
For " a father" (every father) has " this domestic," paternal 
" right," therefore, this right of every father may be violated, 
without any violation of (without " any wrong done to) his 
domestic relations." 

How pliable, how convenient a thing is logic ! Instead of 
being " the science for the discovery of truth," as some have 
supposed, it does its work most adroitly and most to the as- 
tonishment of observers, when error turns slaveholder and 
violates its proper right to discover truth by " urging" it " with- 
out its contract or consent, to labor for" him, and yet violates 
none of its proper (" domestic?) relations." And why is it 
worse to hold Logic as a slave than to hold " an intelligent, 
moral, social and fallen creature" in that condition? — espe- 
cially, since this science, Logic, may be deprived of every one 
of its rights, and, as we have just seen, be subjected to the 
severest torture, without awakening in its iron bosom a single 
regret or drawing from its adamantine eye a single tear ; 
while this right to "transfer" "asocial creature" is, at the 
best, liable in its exercise to create more or less of pain in the 
" transfer" away from wife, husband, child, parent, brother, 
sister — from all social endearments, to the company of stran- 
gers, to the hands and " irresponsible power" of such a being 
as, Mr. F. himself admits, ought never to be entrusted with it, 
because he is liable to " abuse" it. 

Now then, did Jehovah, could He, the Holy One of Israel. 



FtJLLEB AND WAVEAXH. 67 

who, as a vigilant and benevolent, impartial Father, careth 
for and pitieth his children, commit to men this" irresponsible 
power" which a short-sighted mortal, like Mr. Fuller or Mr. 
Wayland or myself, is wise enough to see could never be safely 
commited to any man 1 A priori, universal humanity, uni- 
versal nature cries out — " It is impossible !" The gods of the 
heathen are vanity and a lie — for " the gentiles sacrificed to 
devils under the name of gods, who were supposed to permit 
slavery among their devotees — the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, 
and other heathen to whom Jehovah, the Bible's God, was 
" the unknown"— gods cruel, revengeful, unjust. Here the 
religious theory and the associated moral practice might 
harmonize: but God our father, whose nature is immutable 
perfection, whose law is only a transcript of those perfections, 
" holy, just and good," the friend of the poor and needy, who 
"abhorreth robbery for burnt offering," who requires the oppres- 
sor to let the oppressed go free, and do it now — our God could 
never invest one man with this " irresponsible power." Since 
Mr. F. says it ought never to be done, I may well say, Jeho- 
vah never did it. 

Shall I now be told by Mr. F. that I am beyond my depth, 
when I pretend to determine what God would reveal, or' ( what 
the scriptures ought to teach?" lie has himself undertaken 
to act on this principle, for he has said, as once before quoted, 
"A clear and conclusive declaration of Jehovah's will would 
have been given, if slavery be an awful sin." How does he 
know, better than I, " what the scriptures ovght to teach?" 
Let him, also, be reminded that he has admitted all I ask, and 
has done in his " letters" all that I desire to do on this point. 
He had admitted " that in a dispute with an infidel, the purity 
o\ the Bible is an overwhelming argument." I am " in a 
dispute with an infidel ;" I do not mean Mr. Fuller, though I 
am sure there are important declarations of the Bible he dops 



68 REVIEW OF 

not treat with respect, but another, yet as talented a man aa 
himself. I, therefore, need and must use " the purity of the 
Bible as an overwhelming argument." 

Mr. Fuller seems to be aware that there are other instance? 
analogous to this, for he talks warmly of certain ". enthusiasts, 
(?) flaming and furious — hierophants chafing and rampant," 
to whose " principles the clear permission of God must yield." 
Mr. Fullers " permission," strangely it may seem to him, 
seems to these men, call them " enthusiasts" or what you will, 
as not dc facto, to be found in the Bible, and they, therefore, 
reject not yet the Bible, but Mr. Fuller's " clear permission ;" 
and they very naturally and reasonably aver that, if it can be 
shown, as they do not believe it can, that the slaveholder's 
interpretation is sound, the Bible cannot be a revelation from 
God. Instead, therefore, of talking so much of the " fearful 
responsibility and solemn duty" of the slaveholder in the treat- 
ment of his slaves, he would much better fulfil the high com- 
mission of a minister of Jesus Christ, by acting in view of his 
tremendous "responsibility" for imputing to the scriptures 
such an impurity as the doctrine of " the right of urging men 
to labor for others without their contract or consent." The 
preaching or writing of this doctrine, is repelling many of the 
most intellectual men in the community from giving in their 
adherence to a religion represented by its ministers as so cor- 
rupt. And I solemnly believe that those who impute to Chris- 
tianity the approval of slavery as an institution approved of 
God, are dohig more to prejudice the thinking portion of man- 
kind against the Bible, than all the avowed leaders of infidelity 
ever have done. 

Asa minister of Jesus Christ, therefore, I enter my most 
solemn protestation against this iniquity. I do it in the fear 
of Him at whose holy tribunal Mr. F. and myself are very 
soon to meet and give our respective accounts of our stew- 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. G9 

ardslup. And i call on my brethren every where to unite 
with me in this protestation. But protestation is not the whole 
of my duty touching this most serious matter. I have begun 
a vindication of the Holy Scriptures from the foul imputation, 
and I must proceed, still imploring the aid of my divine In- 
structor. Never was a question of greater moment laid upon 
my mind or presented to the judgment and conscience of every 
citizen in the nation ; for not one is without his responsibility 
in relation to it. I rejoice that so many feel this responsibility 
and are beginning to discharge the duty it involves. 

In examining the Law of Moses I shall need say nothing 
farther on the signification of the word servant ; yet I wish to 
keep the subject constantly in view, while considering the cir- 
cumstances relating to that servitude which was authorized of 
God ; for it will be seen that these circumstances harmonize 
with and so confirm the views already expressed. 

After the word servant, the chief reliance of the advocate of 
Slavery is upon the words "buy" "possession" and "for 
ever," all of which, he supposes, so qualify the word "servant" 
that nothing else can be made of it but slave. To him a He- 
brew servant is, therefore, a bought slave as a possession for 
ever. 

I will first dispose of the last words, " for ever," as these are 
supposed to qualify the other words. True, though Mr. F. 
talks loudly about our setting philology at defiance, he makes 
no attempt at a philological explanation of any of these words, 
assuming, with apparent confidence, that the use he makes of 
them is the correct use, probably taking it for granted that a 
menacing tone will secure a silent acquiescence. This is not 
unaccountable, since a slaveholder is in the habit of command- 
ing and being servilely obeyed, not only by his slaves, but by 
some Northern men nominally free. 

The words "for ever," like all other words, have both a 



70 REVIEW OF 

radical meaning and a circumstantial use. The same is the 
case in the Hebrew word LAGNALAM, for ever, as found in 
the two passages much relied upon in argument for perpetual 
slavery under the Mosaic law, viz: Exod. xxi: 6 and Lev. 
xxv : 46. GNALAM or ALAM, a long period. The 
length of this period is varied by the words in connection, or 
by the nature of the subject. The word itself determines 
nothing, therefore, in regard of the duration cf the servitude, 
even if the words "for ever" were understood to qualify the 
whole phrase ; but the most natural meaning, Exod. xxi: 6, 
is always, or this shall always be the law, viz: that ye may 
buy or obtain servants of (from among) the heathen ; and Lev. 
xxv. 46, ever after, or during the next period to the following 
" jubilee," 49 years, or, perhaps, only during the next six years. 
In any way, it affects not our question, since the agreement 
or bargain entered into between the master and servant was 
voluntarily made, and, therefore, forbids the idea of slavery, 
viz : involuntary, coerced servitude for any duration. 

If it be claimed that the words for ever mean eternally, 
whether applied to the period of a slave's service, or to the 
period of that law's authority, the claim will not suit the pur- 
pose of the claimant, unless either the relation of master and 
slave must continue through eternity, or the rule or law must 
exist for the same very long space, during which, I believe, no 
slaveholder ever yet either lived, or expected to hold his au- 
thority over the slave. If, then, the slaveholder will limit the 
period at all, as by the life of either the master or servant, so 
will I give it the limit of the general law, which expressly 
requires that "all the inhabitants of the land shall be free at 
the year of the Jubilee — so free as not to return to servitude 
again, unless they renew their agreement to do so. 

But " they shall be your possession," is thought to give a 
right of slave ownership. Since, however, God declares himself 



FULLER AND WAYLANP. 71 

the " possession of his people," without being their slave, Ezek. 
xliv : 28, and since that becomes a man's rightful u posses- 
sion" which he purchases, paying the rightful owner for it, 
" without contract or consent" never being any part of such a 
bargain and purchase, the word gives no support to the idea of 
coerced servitude. 

But " of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids," does 
certainly mean something, says the objector, and that must be 
slavery. Yes, this means something, but not necessarily 
slavery ; for it may mean something else ; and every thing we 
have yet seen and the whole tenor of the word of God require, 
in order to consistency, that it be so understood that God — 
the God of the entire Bible, may be seen to be the God of 
order — " For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace." 
It is the advocate of slavery, who sets the scriptures at war 
with themselves, by forcing upon portions of the Holy Word, 
a meaning which the inditing Spirit never intended. Yet Mr. 
Fuller is too much " a lawyer" not to be aware that, in inter- 
preting a legal instrument, as a law or constitution, it is an 
established judicial rule, to give an " innocent" meaning to 
such words as may be made to express both an innocent and 
injurious one. If "Mr. F. would have the most favorable con- 
struction put upon his 01019 words, most favorable to his char- 
acter as a just man, — above all, should he have been disposed 
to put such a construction upon the words of the Bible as 
leaves the character of God unimpeachable, he would not have 
been shut up to the necessity of ascribing to God the establish- 
ment of an institution of which he declares himself unwilling 
to be considered a "eulogist and abettor," " the existence of 
which," says he, " I lament, for the commencement of which 
I am notai all responsible." No : In the "principle" of slav- 
ery, (that is, as he explains it, the committing to such a being 
as " the Bible" represents man to be, " irresponsible power,") 



72 REVIEW OK 

Mr. Fuller sees too much danger. So, to escape the odium of 
doing such a deed, he presumes to throw the responsibility 
and the odium on God. What more could Voltaire have- 
done ? What more did he, when it was his avowed purpose 
to overthrow the Christian religion and make <f the Nazarene" 
an object of universal contempt ? I go, then, for the vindica- 
tion of the Scriptures from holding such responsibility. 

1 wish, however, to say that I have no desire even to imply 
that the intention of Mr. Fuller is like that of Voltaire ; nor 
his purpose like that of ex-Governor Hammond, of South 
Carolina, who says — " Eight or wrong, we will support slav- 
ery." But his education, as he admits, has made his opinions 
what they are, and has brought his otherwise fine intellectual 
powers under subjection to sentiments which his moral feel- 
ings abhor. Still, I can not, like Mr. Wayland, acquit him of 
" guilt'' in allowing himself to be so controlled, since the 
" ignorance" which acquits of guilt, does not belong to a man 
so gifted and Bible-taught as Mr. Fuller is. We must look 
for that ignorance which God winks at, in a land of much 
deeper darkness than even that which broods over South Car- 
olinian white men. Tenebrae, quae super terrain simile m 
Bgxjpto, tarn densae, ut palpari queant. Nay, this darkness 
must be very much deeper, for Egypt was not held guiltless, 
and " the Lord will never hold" that mortal so, " who taketh 
his name in vain/' by imputing to Him the approval of that 
which he, the man himself, justly " laments." 

Need I say a word, therefore, for the purpose of demonstra- 
ting that the buying of men allowed the ancient people of God, 
was not " the reduction of a free people to slavery," which 
Mr. F. would (he declares) " oppose as firmly as any man.'' 
For such would have been the act of the Israelites, if they had 
bought of " the heathen" or of " the strangers" sojourning 
among themselves, " their children," to make them slaves. 



I I I.U.K ANH WAYLAND. 73 

M The children of those " strangers," none will pretend, I 
think, were " persons taken in war" by their fathers. 

" Lament its existence" as he will, Mr. F. may not yet be 
aware how powerful is the influence which slavery addresses 
to, and practically exerts over that sensitive principle of self- 
ishness, which, when excited, more than once prompted even 
the pious David to commit deeds he afterwards lamented. 
rvw$» tfcauTov (" Gnothi seauton," know thyself) is a maxim 
yet but feebly obeyed, perhaps, by any of us. It is possible 
that Mr. F. found a less inflexible antagonist, in the President 
of Brown University, whose patronage from the South is in a 
degree contingent on the avowed sentiments of its officers, 
than he would have found in the same man while a Pastor of 
the First Baptist Church in Boston. " The heart — who can 
know it I" 

Clear as it is, however, theologically, that the buying was 
not into slavery, yet " philology" is challenged and must abide 
a trial. God employs " words" not only " pure" but intelli- 
gible ; for" God is light," and his " word is a lamp," much as 
the nominally Christian world is divided into sects through 
differing views of the Bible. Wherever the fault lies, it is 
not in God or his word. His " word is very pure ; therefore," 
should Chrdstians all alike love it all, though this is the prin- 
cipal occasion of " the carnal mind's" dislike of it. My 
" infidel" controvertist at the North, to whom I have before 
alluded, may not like this last suggestion, but truth requires 
that I make it, and I sincerely pray that it may do him good, 
as well as Mr. Fuller. Light, purity and love are the three 
glories of the Bible, and, when it is correctly read by " an 
understanding heart," these conspire to " change" that heart 
" into the same image." So transformed, it "can do nothing 
against the truth" which it loves for its intrinsic excellence, 
and for the victory it has achieved for the man over sin, to 
E 



74 REVIEW OF 

which he had formerly " yielded" himself a " servant" (not a 
" slave" however, for then it would be " without contract or 
consent/') but from which he is now made " free," a word not 
always the antithesis of enslaved, but free from a painful and 
very unprofitable servitude freely entered — entered by contract 
or consent, — yet painful and unproductive of any real advan- 
tage. It is in relation to this servitude a prophet very sensibly 
interrogates — " Wherefore, do ye spend your labor for that 
which satisfieth not V — and says — " Ye have sold yourselves, 
(not having been " urged by a violent motive to labor for 
another without their contract or consent") " for nought." 
The fact that they got nothing for the sale in this case, and 
that they labored for nothing satisfying, did not nullity " the 
contract" nor disprove their '•' consent," and so did not make 
them slaves, but only voluntary, contracted " servants of sin." 
I am heartily thankful for Mr. Fuller's definition of slavery, 
inasmuch as it is so graphic, and has the very soul of slavery 
in it, and can not be misunderstood, or varied, or " retrenched" 
even by himself, saving only the single word " right," which, 
we have seen, was, by a remarkable figure of speech, put 
for wrong. So I may say, with Mr. W., that " it pleases me 
better than any I have ever seen," though, perhaps, not for 
precisely the same reason. And I find this pleasure increas- 
ing as I proceed by its light in the examination of the scrip- 
tures, because, when set by the side of Bible words, such as 
gervant, laborer, buy, &c.,it serves, not by coercion either, but 
spontaneously, to evince very clearly at every step, that to 
make slavery adhere to those words, is an impossibility. The 
definition slides off like water from a smooth surface inverted, 
and carries away with it every taint of slavery which misin- 
terpretation had imparted to these words. 

The Truth, new-washed, shines brighter than before, — 
As diamonds sparkle on the sea-beat shore, 
Where long imbedded they withheld their light, 
Till dashing waves have washed them into sight. 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. /D 

I am no poet, but these " lines" express what none will 
question, and " I flatter myself," (for neither Mr. Fuller nor 
Mr. Wayland may be disposed to flatter me as they did each 
other,) that many passages have been incidentally and inform- 
ally, but still sufficiently, illustrated, while we have been 
approaching the word " buy," and we may be the better, more 
scripturally prepared for the examination of the scriptural use 
of this " difficult word," as some regard it. 

The word used Levit. xxv. 44, 45 and Exod. xxi. 1, is 
KANAH, which Gibb's Gesenius defines, " 1, to get, gain, 
acquire ; 2, to buy ; 3, particularly to redeem, ransom, e. g., 
from captivity ; 4, to obtain for a possession, to obtain ; 5, to 
own, possess ; 6, prepare, form, make." 

I take the first meaning here given to be the general or 
etymological one ; as, on examining the various passages 
where the word is used and translated to buy, I find that the 
word get may be substituted in nearly, if not in every instance, 
for " buy," without changing the sense. Obtaining or getting 
for money or any article of property is to " buy," which latter 
English word implies what get, or obtain does not, as you 
may get, obtain, acquire, without buying, whether rightfully 
or wrongfully. 

In the three passages named above, get or obtain suits the 
connection perfectly well : — as. If thou get, or obtain a He- 
brew servant — of the heathen shall ye obtain — of the children 
of strangers that sojourn among you, of them shall ye obtain ; 
— so Isa. lv. 1 — "come obtain, get wine and milk, without 
money and without price." To " buy" without money and 
without price, can not be done, but where articles are offered 
free, they may be obtained without money or price. Jer. 
xxii. 44, men shall obtain, or get, or acquire fields for money. 
Deut xxviii. 63, ye shall be sold, and no man shall get, take 
you. I will not insist on substituting in Exod. and Levit. 



lb REVIEW OF 

another meaning given by Gesenius, viz. " to redeem," though 
might with much more propriety, than to admit that the 
buying there spoken of was into slavery. If, as some advo- 
cates of slavery have said, the servants to be obtained from 
among the heathen were " persons taken captive in war," 
then God might well give permission to his people to obtain 
them by purchase for "servants" which is all the word 
"bond-man" (EBED) can mean, as I have shown. But they 
might obtain servants of the children of strangers residing 
among them; and, as these children were not of that descrip- 
tion of persons, they needed not to be redeemed, being already 
free. I, therefore, prefer the word obtain. And, when we 
come to see how the servants were to be treated under law, 
there being but " one," the same " law, for the home-born and 
the stranger," — not home-born servant, but person, as the. 
application is to all classes of the people, — we may be satisfied 
that to obtain is the better word, and much better harmonizes 
with that judicial rule, that the " innocent meaning" is always 
to be preferred in a doubtful case, as well as with the justice 
and benevolence of the Gospel. 

The servant obtained for money might himself receive and 
possess and literally own the money, agreeing, " contracting, 
consenting" to labor for the obtainer on that account, for the 
period for which he " contracted," viz. to the next 7th or 50th 
year, having during that period the privileges of a free citi- 
zen, which, "without his contract or consent," he could not 
be. This accords better with what Mr. F. says of a slave's 
receiving compensation and consenting to be a servant, than 
with his definition of a slave : — indeed, it can not be a slave 
who " consents" and receives "compensation." Let him say 
servant, and all difficulty ceases. The servant obtained for 
money was, of course, to be" circumcised," and so naturalized 
and made partaker of all the privileges of other freemen or 



FULLER ANT) WAYLAND. 77 

Israelites. The hired servant and the stranger were not free- 
men, i. e., citizens, members of the congregation of Israel, 
till they, also, were ritually admitted by being " circumcised." 
" No stranger shall eat thereof (the Passover.) But every 
man's servant that is bought (obtained) for money, when thou 
hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. A stranger 
and a hired servant shall not eat thereof. All the congrega- 
tion of Israel shall keep it. And, when a stranger will keep 
the passover, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him 
come near and keep it ; and he shall be as one that is born 
in the land ; for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. 
One law," &.c. Exod. xii. So it appears that whoever was 
circumcised, was naturalized or made a freeman or citizen — 
no slave. 

I shall not need say much of the word possession, as every 
one knows that, though it may be said that " possession is 
nine parts of the law," it is not necessarily ownership. Many 
possess what they do not own, and own what they do not 
possess. 

All those slaveholders, therefore, who believe that Baptism 
is a substitute for circumcision and have their slaves baptized, 
do, in this act, admit those baptized ("circumcised") servants 
to citizenship, or make them freemen ; whereas they must 
regard unbaptized " strangers and hired servants" as not being 
freemen. But this is not applicable to Mr. F. and those who 
believe with him about baptism. Still, let these reflect that, 
as the circumcised " bought" servant and the stranger were 
admitted to Israelitish citizenship or freedom, while the" un- 
circumcised person" was not a citizen or freeman, so under 
the Constitution of the United States, those strangers, " for- 
eigners," who have not resided here a certain period and 
taken the oath of allegiance, are not "free," in the Constitu- 
tional sense of the term, and these may be the" all other per- 

F.2 



78 REVIEW OP 

sons" referred to in the Constitution, who are to be reckoned 
in districting for the choice of representatives to Congress, 
unless we throw out of the Constitution what it contains 
touching the purpose " to establish justice," &c. 

I am not disposed to go into the political bearings of this 
subject; yet, as Mr. F. treats slavery as he does, lest "the 
union" of the States be broken by other views of it, I may be 
"suffered thus far." I am more inclined to believe that the 
Truth will sooner and better " heal" what of severance has 
been occasioned by slavery, than that the continuance of the 
cause cf this terrible evil will " touch" the severed ear a and 
heal it." Let justice be done — let slavery die — let the slavery- 
benighted millions'be enlightened — let the wrongs heretofore 
inflicted on them be repented of and redressed — let there be 
in our land " one law for the home-born and for the stranger" — 
equal justice to all without " respect of persons," in agreement 
with the Mosaic law, and peace would return to our country. 
Then no occasion would exist for the North to complain of 
the injustice and cruelties of the South, and none for the 
South to " nullify" the Constitution by denying to Abolition- 
ists, as well as slaves, the rights of citizens, as they now do. 
Then the Congress of the nation will cease to be a field of 
war, and the disgraceful scenes of blood, so often occurring 
in the Slave States among their own citizens, would no more 
exist. Then, too, the ecclesiastical dissensions which, for 
years past, have rent the Missionary and other Societies of 
general benevolence, would be forgotten. 

On whom rests the responsibility of all these and the numer- 
ous other evils which exist because slavery exists? " It will not 
do" for Mr. Fuller to say that these evils would cease, if only 
the North were silent. The South are divided. The South 
are much the greater sufferers than the North, whether we 
regard either the slaves or the nominally free people, of all 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 



7!) 



complexions. For, in what other section of the land are to 
be found one -half so great a proportion of white paupers, of 
uneducated, degraded, morally corrupt and reckless and hope- 
less free people, to say nothing of the slaves? But who are 
the slaves ? Are they thrust beyond the pale of humanity 
and human sympathy ? No. Mr. F. feels for their woes and 
" laments" their condition, though, at times, he strives against 
himself, against his better judgment and nobler sentiments, to 
argue for an institution he condemns. 

The slaves Mr. Fuller admits to be men, and many of 
them brethren in Christ ; — and yet, so deep, is the delusion 
which enwraps his perceptions that he seems not to see that 
they are not treated as either Christian Brethren, or rational 
and rightful inhabitants of the earth. If they are men, he 
knows that by the laws of slavery, which, it is far more evi- 
dent, are necessary to the existence of slavery, than is the 
claim he makes for " the divine right" of " the principle" of 
slavery — he well knows that, by these laws, instead of being 
protected as were the Israeliiish servants in the enjoyment of 
all the rights of men, they are divested of " the right of per- 
sonal liberty," — the right of self-protection and defense, the 
right of civil protection, by being denied the privilege of their 
oath, and trial by jury, and that they are exposed to many 
more " capital punishments" than other men, in direct contra- 
riety to the obviously just gospel maxim that, where much is 
given, much shall be required ; and in glaring violation of the 
gospel law that the ignorant shall be punished with few stripes, 
and the enlightened with many stripes, for the same offences ; 
while the Israelitish servants were protected against mal- 
treatment by sterner laws than were provided for the protec- 
tion of other persons. 

In order that the contrast may be more distinctly seen, I 
will call up some of the laws in the Levitical code, enacted 



80 REVIEW OF 

for the special protection of the servants living under it ; and, 
I sincerely hope the result will demonstrate to Mr. F., in 
agreement with the avowed desire of his heart, that God has 
not given " a revelation not only not forbidding but permitting 
as great a sin as can be conceived." The words here quoted 
were used in reply to Mr. Wayland's admissions that Abra- 
ham and other patriarchs held slaves, and that slavery existed 
in the New Testament Churches. That reply is truly noble 
in spirit and irresistible in argument. I would rather be the 
author of it, than of all that Mr. Wayland's letters contain 
against slavery, qualified as it is. But it may be more suitable 
to take a more extended notice of it, when I come to review 
the letters of Mr. W. 

PROTECTION OF SERVANTS UNDER THE MOSAIC LAW. 

Lev. xxiv. He that killeth any man shall surely be put to 
death. In case a slave is killed without permission of the 
master, the owner is by law empowered to obtain damages 
for the loss ; which law has no example in the law of Moses, 
but the murderer of a neighbor's servant is to be put to death, 
and there is the end of the matter. Yet it is provided that 
" he that killeth a beast shall make it good ; beast for beast ;'' 
because beasts are property, as servants are not. " He that 
killeth a beast shall restore it, and he that killeth a man" (any 
man, whether a servant or not, of course,) "shall be put to 
death. Ye shall have one manner of law for the stranger as 
for one of your own country." " Breach for breach, eye for 
eye, tooth for tooth ; as he hath caused a blemish in a man, 
(any man,) so shall it be done to him again." By this law a 
" servant" is protected against a personal blemish by his mas- 
ter, whereas a slave, under the Roman Code, the American 
Code, and so far as we have any information, every other 
slave code, is liable to be " blemished," mutilated, destroyed, 
without protection. That I am not mistaken in considering 



FILLER AND WAYLAND. 81 

this law ns intended for the protection of servants, is seen in 
Exod. xxi. 24, 27. " Eye for eye, stripe for stripe — and, if a 
man smite the eye of his servant or the eye of his maid, so that 
it perish, he shall let him so free" (SHALACH, dismiss, send 
away, the word "free" having no corresponding word in this 
place in the Hebrew) " for his eye's sake." The same of " a 
Jooth." Here the servant has a peculiar, additional protec- 
tion. If the master, having paid his money to obtain the 
services of a man or woman for the time remaining of the 
prescribed period to the next " jubilee," shall be guilty of 
spoiling the eye of his servant, he shall not only lose one of hia 
own eyes, and the same, if it be " a tooth," but shall, in either 
case, also, dismiss the servant from his employment, and so 
lose the " money" he has paid him for his service. I say, paid 
him. That the money was paid to the person bought, and 
not to another person claiming to be his owner, appears in 
Levit. xxv. 51 ; and, since the advocate of slavery professes 
much reliance on that chapter, it is with the more pleasure I 
refer him to it. The law of redemption provides that a man 
might redeem himself, by paying for the remainder of his 
time. Observe particularly and carefully the language of the 
law, " If there be yet many years behind (or remaining 
in the period for which he "sold himself,") " according unto 
them he shall give again the price of his redemption, out of 
the :.ioxey he was bought for." It will not avail Mr. Ful- 
ler to attempt an evasion of this decisive passage, under 
cover of a pretence that a Hebrew is here spoken of, because 
the only question in hand is, who received the purchase 
money? the person bought, or some other person ? — and the 
Hebrew who was sold, was sold as really as a foreigner, and 
was sold as a servant (Mr. F. says " slave") as truly as the for- 
eigner. The advocates of slavery, who assert " the divine 
right," on the strength of the Levit ical law, seem never to have 
e3 



82 REVIEW OF 

dropped their eye on this passage, which the Holy Ghost has 
caused to be placed in that law, as though in anticipation of 
some (then far future) daring and " reckless" attempt to make 
this law subsidiary to the cause of slavery. Now I am will- 
ing to let the slaveholder have the word " buy," if he demands 
it, instead of obtain in the passage, — " of (from among) the 
heathen round about you, shall ye buy," &c. Only let God 
tell him, as he does here, that, when he " buys" a man, he 
shall pay " the price" to that man, and he may " buy" as many 
men as will sell themselves, if he is able to give them their 
price, or " the price" they set on themselves. Then we shall 
have two, instead of only one, to make the bargain, — then, 
instead of having men made slaves by being " urged by a 
violent motive to labor for another without their contract or 
consent, it is true," we shall have " servants" who become 
such by their own " contract" and " consent." Indeed, we 
have such in New England and all the North, in every grade 
of society ; and I am pleased that there are some such at 
the South. These, when they receive " wages" in advance, 
but choose at any time afterwards, during the period, to 
decline further service, will, if they are just men, act as the 
Levitical law requires — " pay again" (pay back) " the price" 
of the remaining period. 

But, suppose this servant to have a wife and children, what 
shall be done with them, if he goes away ? I answer : Only 
make due allowance for variations in the form, we have the 
same principle in use. In case a free citizen — a citizen of 
Massachusetts — should be disposed to abandon his wife and 
children, leaving a business by which he can support them, 
and should show himself willing to leave them unprovided for, 
justice and benevolence require that, instead of allowing these 
deserted dependants to surfer, the overseers of the poor, if 
they have not employment by which they can maintain them- 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 83 

selves, shall interpose for their relief. Even, if he were dis- 
posed to compel his family to accompany him in a life of 
beggary, they ought to be snatched from his cruel hands and 
employed and provided for by the proper authorities. The 
analogy is strong. The Levitical servant is one in a good em- 
ployment, having his wife and children with him, and having 
in his hand " the price" or wages of future labor, and living 
under a law which secures all of his rights — being under no 
necessity to change his residence or his employment, either 
for his own good or that of his family. He is, therefore, an 
unfaithful husband and father, if he will pay back the wages 
he has received in advance, and turn his back on his family, 
of whom God made him the natural guardian ; for, observe, 
he is not driven away. But being a freeman, he may act lor 
himself and take the consequences ; yet he shall not be suf- 
fered to tyrannize over them. They remain in the care of a 
divinely constituted guardian whom God appoints in his stead. 
They shall belong (adhere) to that guardian. No : this is not 
the case of the man who prefers to pay back his wages — 
" price." He may go away and take his family with him — 
there is no prohibition here, for he may redeem himself, and, 
of course, his family being free may safely go with their head, 
if he is so careful and economical a husband and father as to 
have preserved his wages, so as to be able to " pay back the 
price of his redemption, out of the money he was bought for." 
But the case I have supposed belongs to another man. His 
time is out, but he is not obliged to go from the service of a 
man who for the time has paid and treated him well, agreea- 
bly to the Levitical Law's requirement of the master or em- 
ployer, who, in that very relation, is master or head-man or 
controller of the business for which he pays wages. God 
would establish among his chosen people order and stability, 
as a good example to other people. God commands this man, 
E4 



84 REVIEW OF 

therefore, to remain — to renew hia bargain with that faithful 
employer, and requires the employer to continue the faithful 
laborer in his employment on suitable terms, if he will remain. 
If the master should take the first step and propose that the 
servant leave, no right is given him to retain the "wife and 
children," they must go with the father, for God will give no 
law which empowers one man to " put asunder what He has 
joined together" in holy marriage ; for" the husband is sanc- 
tified (sacredly devoted) unto the wife and the wife to the 
husband, even though they both are unbelievers, otherwise 
the children would be unclean (illegitimate) but now (in the 
sacredness of the marriage union) they are holy (legitimate) 
— constituting a regular and well known continuous posterity. 
See Albert Barries' Notes on 1 Cor. vii. 14. I thank my old 
classmate, Mr. B., for his enlightened views on this passage, 
which has been so perverted by many, that its proper instruc- 
tion has been lost to multitudes, and, especially, in regard to 
the sacredness of marriage among all classes of people ; for, 
while God makes no laws for slavery, he has made such laws 
of marriage as no men may break without sin. And I am 
glad to see Mr. Fuller theoretically right at this point. Yet, 
I marvel that he did not at once see that God preserved 
intact these holy laws of his in all cases under the Levitical 
code. For " God" always " hated putting away" — " putting 
asunder what he himself hath united." " For the hardness 
of their hearts" Moses divinely provided that, if any should 
presume on doing such a nefarious deed as to put away his 
wife, " he should give her a bill of divorcement," and so ac- 
knowledge the sacredness of the union. 

" But from the beginning" (according to the principle of 
the marriage institution,) "it was not so" — it never was right 
for a man to abandon his wife. That is, such abandonment 
never being approved of God, his servant Moses was directed 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 85 

to require of the unfaithful husband to give her a bill of divorce- 
ment — not to obtain one from the Legislature — " a bill," not 
denying, but recognizing her right to his care and protection. 
So in the case under view, the unfaithful husband had no right 
to abandon his " wife and children ;" but, if he would do it, 
they should adhere to the master as their divinely appointed 
guardian. Now observe the proof that, if he should leave 
them, he was not a loving husband and father; "but, if the 
servant shall say, I love my master, my wife, and my chil- 
dren," he would, under the circumstances we have noticed, 
remain and renew his agreement to continue, his labor and 
receive his wages. He would, therefore, consent to the slight 
ceremony of having his ear bored; slight, because attended 
with not a hundredth of the pain of circumcision. To talk of 
that ceremony as " a painful and bloody ceremony," is really 
too rediculous to be heard with sobriety. But the bargain is 
renewed and he goes on in the employment of his old master 
(" for ever" meaning, as Mr. F. will not deny, the full period) 
to " the Jubilee," i. e., to " the fiftieth year." 

Josephus explains the words for ever as I do. The end of 
the forty -nine years was the end of " for ever," as the words 
are used in relation to all these bargains. 

This limitation, I may here observe, to prevent a misappre- 
hension, does by no means affect the doctrine of the duration 
of those enjoyments or sufferings which follow death ; because, 
only take the words to mean the entire duration in any case 
alluded to, and they necessarily embrace the entire extent of 
duration which follows death, so in this case, meaning through 
eternity. 

The Hebrew, who had his ear bored, was as truly to be a 
servant " for ever" as one from among the heathen, or the 
children (descendants) of strangers, foreigners resident among 
the Hebrews ; and, therefore, in every fiftieth year, all the 



86 REVIEW OF 

servants, "all the inhabitants of the land" necessarily includ- 
ing servants, were to be released from all obligation to labor 
for others, until they made new contracts. " The lands," 
whatever sales had taken place during the forty-nine years, 
were, in the fiftieth year, to revert to the families which origi- 
nally possessed them, and with this reversion of the lands, the 
termination of all contracts with every species of servants 
was unavoidable. One employer has grown rich, and added 
land to land, and consequently increased the number of his 
laborers. Now those lands can be held by him no longer, 
and no permission is contained in the law for his disposal of 
any of his servants by sale. If they were slaves, he would be 
bound to retain and provide for them, but having no more 
than a few acres to cultivate, they would become an intolera- 
ble burthen upon him and would render him bankrupt speed- 
ily. To relieve this difficulty, Mr. Fuller will find it necessary 
to suppose without authority, (for the law gives not such an 
idea,) that the master did have the right of selling his ser- 
vants, and so introduce the whole bundle of the abominations 
inseparable from the slave-trade, foreign and domestic, and 
make the Promised land a slave-trading region, and Jerusalem 
the great shambles for human " bodies and souls," separating 
(" to suit the purchasers") the families of the slaves, as is done 
and must be done wherever slaves are sold. So, under His 
own Law, His own institution of Marriage, which God estab- 
lished at " the beginning," and has always held so sacred and 
guarded with so much care, would by Himself be subverted. 
I believe, Mr. Fuller thinks not very favorably of interfering 
with " domestic relations" in this manner ; but, if he will have 
the Levitical servitude in his argument for slavery, he must 
take the foreign and domestic traffic in skives with it. But 
who ever read of the slave market in Jerusalem ? Judas sold 
his Master there, I admit : but. I think, not in even this case 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 87 

do we have an example of slave-trading, although the Lord 
Jesus, " the Branch," was a " servant" (EBED, Doulos.) He 
was sold as a Lamb for the slaughter, and not as a slave to be 
" urged by a violent motive to labor for another -without his 
contract or consent." Jesus took, indeed, the form of a ser- 
vant, but it was a voluntary act and would no more suit Mr. 
Fuller's definition of slavery, than his crucifixion would the 
unwilling execution of a criminal. " He gave himself for us." 
And, notwithstanding the voluntary submission of Jesus to 
the persecution and insults of those who betrayed, derided and 
crucified him, and the legality of the proceedings against him, 
for he was put to death by the government and not by a law- 
less mob, no one will dare pretend that his enemies were not 
murderers. 

Because God saw fit to punish certain grossly idola- 
trous and every way immoral tribes for their sins, and made 
his ancient people, by special commission, the execution- 
ers of his righteous displeasure in putting some of them to 
death, and in making others to submit themselves (as the 
Gibeonites) to be tributaries to them, is it good logic to infer 
that unauthorized individuals may now put to death whom 
they will ? or that the government of a state are guiltless in 
putting to death the innocent ? or that either individuals or 
government have the right " to urge one man by a violent 
motive" (irrespective of crime) " to labor for another without 
his contractor consent 1" And yet Mr. Fuller contends for 
this "right" to compel (" urge by a violent motive") one to 
labor for another against his will, i. e., " without his consent 
or contract." Governments hold not the right " to condemn 
the innocent." If they may doom any man to labor without 
his consent, it must be one who has broken some high law of the 
land ; nay, they must see to it that he has broken some law 
of God. To punish a citizen for breaking a law of human 
government, which law is itself an act of rebellion against God, 



00 REVIEW or 

is monstrous wickedness ; for every righteous human law is 
no more than a specification of some law of God, no possible 
case ever arising which justly requires that a human law be 
enacted, either in opposition to a divine law, or destitute of a 
foundation in the divine law. Charles T. Torrey was incar- 
cerated according to law — the law of the sovereign State of 
Maryland : but who will dare look up to heaven and look 
his Master in the face, and pretend that he was rightfully 
punished ? This Maryland law is itself moral treason, rebel- 
lion against the supreme government of the world — against 
the great and only Potentate, the King of the kings and judges 
of the earth. 

The law of God is one and unchangable. " Thou shalt 
love thy neighbor as thyself," is a law as lasting and unaltera- 
ble as God himself. It was written in the Mosaic law — 
placed there in the midst of the numerous specific statutes of 
that Law, as the standard of their interpretation and the reg- 
ulator of their application in every case ; and, as the voice of 
God, imperatively forbidding both Jew and Gentile so to 
interpret any rule or precept of the Divine Law as to make 
it seem lawful to hold a man as a slace. 

The view we have taken of the perversions of scripture, in 
both its language, its history and its doctrines, necessary to 
the argument of Mr. Fuller or any other advocate or " apolo- 
gist" for slavery, leads naturally to the inquiry whether he is 
the man to intimate that Abolitionists may be driven to the 
rejection of the Bible altogether, in order to sustain themselves? 
In his first letter (to the Reflector) he goes somewhat beyond 
a mere intimation of such a result. It is just, therefore, that 
we have an opportunity for self-defence. He says : 

"1. In affirming what you (the Abolitionists) do, ought it 
not to give a pious mind pause, that you are brought into 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 89 

direct conflict with the Bible ? The Old Testament did 
sanction slavery. 

" 2. A man who denies that some sort of slavery was 
allowed in the Old Testament and suffered by Jesus and his 
Apostles, will deny any thing, and only proves how much 
stronger a passion is than the clearest truth. Both Dr. Chan- 
ning and Dr. Wayland, with all respectable commentators, 
yield this point. * * * * They (the Abolitionists) 
occupy a position hostile alike to us and to the word of God 

* * * and it appears to me you must either abandon 
the Bible, or make it teach an expediency and ' keeping back 
of the truth,' which it abhors, or modify your views." 

In his third letter to Mr. Wayland, he thus summarily 
involve^ all Abolitionists in equal guilt. " Nor should good 
men among the Abolitionists complain, if, in rebuking the 
wicked and mischievous measures of the party, no exceptions 
are made ; for it is these very men who lend influence to the 
Abolition Associations. * * All who belong to that party 
are responsible for the mischief it does'.' 

In the last quotation Mr. F. extends the limits of human 
responsibility considerably beyond the rule lately adopted by 
some who regard the doings of a corporation or " party" as 
" organic sins," attaching no responsibility to the individuals 
composing the body ; and, possibly, beyond the limits within 
which he would, on a little reflection, like to confine himself. 
Does he hold himself " responsible for the mischief" his 
"party" — made up of all the slaveholders in the world — 
" does ?" I have thought he did not ; but, since he assails the 
" good men" in a " party," with this war-club of universal 
responsibility, he " should not complain, if, in rebuking the 
wicked and mischievous measures of the party" to which he 
belongs, I make a like use of his own weapon. His " party" 
is made up of all who go so far as to apologize for Slavery ; 



90 REVIEW OF 

for he is, perhaps, the most important defender slavery can 
boast, being a slaveholder, a talented, and learned, and repu- 
tedly a pious man. Mr. Wayland speaks to his face in the 
highest terms, of his piety. To give, therefore, his own idea 
in his own words — " It is these very men (the good men) who 
lend influence to the" Slaveholding " Associations." Only 
take away from Slavery what of support " good men" give it, 
and the whole system would tumble to ruin in a day. Some 
of us have been thought very wrong in ascribing to the influ- 
ence of the ministry and the churches so large a portion of 
the strength of " the Patriarchal institution." Mr. F. is right 
in the general principle that "good men" are the chief props 
of any evil practice to which they " lend influence ;" and it 
may do him good to look about and see who are the associates 
for whose " measures" he stands responsible. Gov. Ham- 
mond, for example, is one of them, and those who have read 
his lucubrations can judge correctly of the nature of the 
responsibility which falls on Mr. F. by being of his "party." 
Again, I have before me a pamphlet entitled " A Treatise on 
the Patriarchial System of Society, as it exists in some 
governments and colonies in America, and in the United 
States, under the name, of Slavery, with its necessity and 
advantages. By an inhabitant of Florida. Fourth edition, 
with an Appendix. 1834." Who the writer is, 1 know 
not, but the title is imposing ; and the date of this " fourth 
edition, 1834," suggests that the Southern press had been busy 
in advance of the "incendiary publications" and "wicked 
and mischievous measures of the North," to which the entire 
disturbances of the South are often attributed. This pamphlet 
had enjoyed so much public favor as to run through three 
editions in five years, and its origin was earlier than any Anti- 
Slavery publication belonging to the present movement ; since 
its " second edition," the appendix informs us, was issued in 



FULLER AND WAYLAJJD. 91 

1829] but those were not commenced till 1830. The North 
are, therefore, not responsible for this work, but Mr. F. is, be- 
cause it is one of " the measures of the party," of which he 
has been for seven years, at least, a leader " lending influence" 
to all on it. This old pamphlet, which was adapted to arouse 
the spirit of liberty to defend itself, is read by myself and oth- 
ers with much greater interest on Mr. Fuller's account. And 
what " measures" does this associate and forerunner of Mr. F. 
recommend ? 

He is decidedly opposed to " Colonization in Africa, to for- 
ward which," says he, " a general system of persecution against 
the free colored people has been legalized throughout the 
Southern States,which leaves them the alternative of submitting 
to a condition worse than slavery, or of leaving the country to 
which nativity has given them a natural right ; in this dilem- 
ma, it is to be hoped that some way of escape will present it- 
self." Remember that this " persecution" preceded our publi- 
cations and and "measures." He says that he is " a slave 
owner, and has a right to express his opinions, having lived by 
planting in Florida the last twenty-five years." He disavows 
" all other motives but that of increasing the value of his prop- 
erty." ..." Pride and prejudice," he continues, " our 
present stumbling blocks in the management of our negroes, 
should give way to policy and the necessity of self-preserva- 
tion, and induce us to remove as far as possible, whatever are 
the obvious causes of this dangerous spirit of revolt. Power 
may for a while triumph over weakness and misfortune. But 
as all nature (from the eternal principle of self) takes part with 
weakness against power, the reaction finally must be terrible 
and overwhelming. . . Our laws to regulate slaves are en- 
tirely founded on terror." The writer seems equally kind 
with Mr. F., and would have the slaves very tenderly treat- 
ed ; and among other means of pleasing the slaves, he recouv 

F 



92 REVIEW OF 

mends the following, viz : that the master have it in his power 
to emancipate, so that he may promise freedom to such a slave 
as may render him special service, as in saving his life "by 
rescuing him from assassins, or in saving the life and property 
of a whole community by informing against conspirators. Is 
there anything," he inquires with good sense and emphasis, — 
" Is there anything worthy of acceptance that can be offered 
to a slave, but freedom?" He then goes on to speak of the 
necessity of allowing the free colored people the right of giving 
testimony, and pleads that " their moral character is better 
than that of the whites in the same condition." " It would 
be worth the while" he adds, " to try the experiment of a small 
mixture of reward with the punishment — such as allowing them 
the free use of Sunday, as a market day and jubilee, which, I 
have observed, had a good effect in all foreign countries, also 
in Louisiana." Th^ere may be some doubt whether the " Pa- 
triarch" Abraham or Moses, tried this " experiment" with his 
" servants." But hear him. " The laws of the Southern 
States are exclusively constructed for the protection of whites, 
and vexatious tyranny over the persons and properties of every 
colored person." 

This statement of our Floridian Patriarch will be duly borne 
in memory by Mr. Fuller and the world. It is truth not to be 
questioned ; but we seldom meet with an " owner of slaves'' 
honest enough to avow it. Scores of emancipaied slaves shall 
yet thank him for the frank avowal, or, at any rate, have rea- 
son to rejoice in consequence of it. 

He proceeds — "Policy and self preservation require, to ren- 
der the system beneficial, that slaves must be kept under 
wholesome and just restraint, which must always create some 
degree of resistance, more or less, to Patriarchal authority ; to 
counterbalance which, the interest and co-operation of the 
free colored people is absolutely necessary, when the white pop- 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 93 

uiation is scanty." That is, " the free colored" must be treated 
kindly (bribed) that they may help keep down the elaves. 
Again — " a war of color, would in our situation, of all wars be 
the most dangerous, because we naturally and unavoidably 
(under our present policy) contain within us the materials of 
our own dissolution." This kind and politic writer at length 
goes on to ascribe " all the late insurrections of slaves (as fcr 
instance, at Barbadoes and Demerara,) to fanatical preachers, 
and to white missionaries from England. Vesey, who insti- 
gated the Charleston plot, was an exhorting brother." This 
is a hint to the planters to have little to do with religious peo- 
ple. And then, — " A favorite maxim with some of our old 
Southern politicians, to increase the security of slave property, 
has been to prohibit the increase of the free (colored) people : 
or, by some means or other, not yet divulged, to get rid of the 
evil altogether," &c. To this he objects, and, afterwards, tells 
his own experience in managing slaves. 

He says — u I never interfered with their connubial concerns, 
&c. I taught them nothing but what was useful. I encour- 
aged as much as possible, dancing, merriment and dress, for 
which Saturday afternoon and Sunday mornirfg were dedicat- 
ed. I never allowed them to visit, for fear of bad example," 
&c. He then tells of a minister who afterwards came among 
them and taught them " it was sinful to dance, work their corn, 
or catch fish on a Sunday," &c. This, he says, spoiled them ; 
and " when it" (religion) " renders men unhappy and discon- 
tented with their condition in life, it certainly should be ra- 
tionally opposed." 

So much for one of the Southern " Patriarchs." Mr. F., 
another of them, " should not complain, if in rebuking" some 
of the above " measures" as " wicked and mischievous," I 
make no " exception" in his favor, since he i3 one of " the 
party," and ' ' it is these good men who lend influence" to the 
rest. 



94 REVIEW OF 

The account given by this writer, who seems as thoroughly 
versed in every thing pertaining to slavery as any one I have 
ever read, certainly does not perfectly accord with that of Mr. 
Fuller. In addition to the statement we have already noticed, 
he avers that " the policy generally pursued by our own slave- 
holding State governments, with regard to free colored peo- 
ple, and that pursued by foreign colonial and other slavehold- 
ing governments, are directly opposite." That is, while oth- 
ers have made it a point to bind the free colored people to 
themselves and their interests by kind treatment, Americans 
have made " terror" the basis of their slave government, and 
the same policy has been exi ended to the entire colored popu- 
lation. This writer condemns this policy, as most unwise, 
making this class the enemies of the whites, and keeping alive 
their sympathies towards the slaves. He urges, as we have 
seen, that an " experiment" be tried of mingling some little 
of kindness with the universal severity. 

Now let us hear Mr. Fuller. " In reference to the laws of 
South Carolina, I am not called to express myself in this dis- 
cussion." I pause to ask why? The reason could not arise 
from any peculiar strictness of his purpose to adhere to the one 
question in debate, for his readers have seldom, I apprehend, 
been invited to sit down to a much greater variety of dishes 
having no nearer relation to the principal meal than that they 
were eatables of some sort. But hear him farther. " Suffice 
it to say, that most of them were virtually repealed by univer- 
sal practice." If those laws were good, they should be revived ; 
but, if bad, the "universal" people might have given to the 
world a more decisive proof of their nullity by just directing 
the legislatures to wipe them from their statutes. '•' The law, 
for example, forbidding slaves to assemble without the presence 
of so many white persons, is a dead letter, whenever the meet- 
ing is for a religious purpose. I might make the same remark 



PULLER AMD WAYLANI). 95 

of many other statutes. The most important law is that for- 
bidding slaves being taught to read ; yet how many are taught! 
(as though many were! ! !) And this act would, long since," 
(since 1834, the date of the last edition from Florida ?) " have 
been expunged, but for the infatuated intermeddling of fanati- 
cism." p. 160. Here we have materials enough for a long 
chapter, but I will not trouble the reader with all I think about 
these statements. They strangely clash with those made by 
our Florida " Patriarch," that " terror" some twenty years 
ago, was the universal " policy ;" and with what I have learn- 
ed from many others, and personally. 

Rev. Robert J. Breckenridge, once a slaveholder in Ken- 
tucky, and afterwards a resident in Baltimore, raises the in- 
quiry — " What is slavery V and answers it — " It is that con- 
dition enforced by the laws of one-half of the States of this 
confederacy, in which one portion of the community, called 
masters, is allowed such power" (Mr. F. admits that the mas- 
ter's " power is irresponsible" — " a despotism") " over another 
portion, called slaves, as, 1st. To deprive them of the entire 
earnings of their labor, except only so much as is necessary to 
continue labor itself, by continuing healthful existence, thus 
committing clear robbery." (See again Mr. Fuller's definition 
of slavery, which he says is "right," if you have forgotten it.) 
"2d. To reduce them to the necessity of universal concubin- 
age." Mr. F. says — "many of the laws are virtually repeal- 
ed by universal practice." Is this a part of that " universal 
practice" It would seem that the law of God relating to mar- 
riage is one so " repealed," if Mr. B. is correct ; and who does 
not know that slavery annihilates marriage? Mr. F. " must 
not complain," if he be held responsible for the doings of his 
"party" — " To reduce them to the necessity of universal con- 
cubinage" (adultery ?) " by denying to them the rights of mar- 
riage , thus breaking up the dearest relations of life, and en- 
p2 



96 REVIEW OF 

couraging universal prostitution" {adultery 1) . "3d. To de- 
prive them of the means and opportunities of moral and intel- 
lectual culture. 4th. To set up between parents and their 
children, an authority higher than the impulses of nature and 
the laws of God" (Mr. F. thinks the master's relation to the 
slave is just like that of the parent to the child) — " which 
breaks up the authority of the father over his own offspring, and 
at pleasure, separates the mother at a returnless distance from 
her child ; thus abrogating the dearest laws of nature ; thus 
outraging all decency and justice, and degrading and oppress- 
ing thousands upon thousands of beings created in the image 
of the Most High God. This is Slavery, as it is daily ex- 
hibited in every Slave State." 

Such is the testimony of a well known, talented and highly 
respected gentleman of the South ; yet Mr. F. describes the 
slaves as " a contented and and cheerful peasantry." p. 136. 
Let those remember this who have been led to think of Mr. 
F. as a reformer, and not as one speaking favorably of " Slave- 
ry as it is." Perhaps, his readers derived the idea that he is 
opposed to slavery from his saying that " at the South this des- 
potism is (if I may so speak) not absolute, but mitigated and 
limited." Truly, this looks very much like a disapproval of 
slavery, since he contends that " slavery is despotism" — that 
" despotism is not a sin," and that " slavery is not affected by 
any human enactments." " Slavery at the South" is then bet- 
ter than the thing he approves, for " it is not absolute, but mit- 
igated and limited." And this " limited despotism" is the 
thing described by Mr. Breckenridge! 

Set, also, the judgment of Cassius M. Clay, lately a slave- 
holder, over against the statement of Mr. Fuller. " Slavery" 
says Mr. Clay, " is our nationalsin, and must be destroyed, or 
we are lost. From a small cloud, not larger than a man's 
hand, it has overspread the whole heavens. Three millions of 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 97 

our fellow men, all (if our religion be not a fuble) children of 
the same Father, are held in absolute servitude and the most 
unqualified despotism." In his " Appeal," Dec. 6, 1645. So 
much in proof of slavery being innocent, and the " laws" being 
a dead letter — " repealed by universal practice" ! 

Now, will Mr. Fuller declare it as his serious opinion that 
even one-hundreth part of the 327,038 slaves in South Caroli- 
na are able to read a single chapter in the New Testament ? 
This low proportion gives 3,280 readers among the slaves of 
that State. No: Mr. F. well knows that not one thousand 
are able to read a chapter intelligibly, which is only one to 
three hundred ; and, as to writing, can ten be found ? No. 
And then, for Mr. F. professes to assert their "intellectual 
rights," how many have been " taught" Arithmetic, Geogra- 
phy, History, Chemistry, Geometry, Natural and Intellectual 
to say nothing of Moral, Philosophy, &c. — which branches of 
education hang down their fruits for the poorest children of 
Mass. to pluck, as is evinced in the hundreds of cases of such 
children springing up, not only into the common walks of re- 
spectable society, but into seats of literature, as teachers of 
youth, Professors and Presidents of Colleges, or into seats of 
legislation in the State and National Government, or of judg- 
ment in our Courts, as well as of theology in the Pulpit. Say you 
this is not a fair comparison ? — but that I ought to set the whites 
of the North against the whites of the South ? Why? Mr. F. 
professes to respect " the rights of the slaves as of other citi- 
zens, all but the small item of liberty, in some of his remarks. 
I may therefore compare community with community. And 
then, would he show in South Carolina, the whites, or even 
the slaveholding whites, on a level with all of the citizens of 
New England in literary and scientific improvement ? But, 
our concern is at present, with the colored people, or rather, 
with all compared with all. But do you decline the compari- 
Fi 



98 REVIEW 0? 

son, under the pretence that it is ridiculous to talk of slaves be- 
ing taught Geography, Geometry, &.c 1 Soberly, why? — 
Why is it more ridiculous to talk of poor blacks acquiring such, 
knowledge than poor whites ! The very thought of a distin- 
guished citizen, a Judge, Governor, &c, having risen from the 
lowest rank in society, associates the pleasurable sentiment of 
respect amounting almost to veneration, if he be a white man. 
Why is the thought of a black man having his mind stored' 
with useful knowledge and being elevated to some post of hon- 
or, ridiculous ? I answer that this most mean and unworthy 
feeling is generated by Slavery, and this fact alone is sufficient 
to prove it a corrupt institution. You say that it would not 
suit the condition of a slave to have such intellectual furniture ; 
and, as he can never hope to rise to any dignity, it would be 
useless to waste the expense upon him. Ah, " there's the rub." 
Slavery thrusts down its subject too low to admit of elevation, 
and then pleads that his condition forbids his elevation. Let 
the pretended lover of universal human improvement, who 
looks eoolly on this matter, look long enough to discover in it 
the occasion of his shame. Has Mr. F. who so loudly boasts 
of teaching his own slaves, ever thoroughly educated one of 
them ? Or does he not mean that he has taught them as 
much as is compatible with their condition as slaves, and not 
as men and women — to use the words of our Fioridian Patri- 
arch — "useful," i.e., as slaves'? Others have, occasionally 
taught them too much for their condition, and have been oblig- 
ed to advertise them as fugitives. Mr. Fuller may get wis- 
dom by similar experience. I hope he may enjoy a large op- 
portunity. 

For the present, I leave Mr. Fuller to ruminate on the gross 
insults he has so freely, and with so much propriety and honor 
to himself, cast upon his Baptist brethren who assert the sinful- 
ness of slaveholding, and on the responsibilities he has assumed 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 99 

in belonging to the "party" which upholds the system of slave- 
ry, with all its abominations, and in confirming the entire par- 
ty in the self-wrought belief that they are right in doing what 
they " will with their own ;" since it is to him they look as to 
a safe expounder of the law, and from him they learn that God 
approves them in holding slaves, and in using all the means 
necessary to this end, whatever those means may be, whether 
corporeal inflictions, or intellectual darkness and degradation. 

I have now to take notice ot the serious charge (which, 
like most of the charges Mr. Fuller prefers against abolition- 
ists, is slightly characterized by aceibity) that the " act, forbid- 
ding slaves being taught to read, would long since have been 
expunged, but for the infatuated intermeddling of fanaticism." 
In proof, he gives an item of his own experience : 

"It was but a year or two since, at the request of the President 
of the State Agricultural Society, I wrote a letter, to be read 
before that body, on the religious instruction of our negroes; 
and, in that communication, I urged the abrogation of this 
law." 

I thank him for that. It was his duty, and when a question 
of duty arises, Mr. F. abjures " expediency," or a regard for 
«' consequences ;" and, of course, this moral hero will not be 
numbered among men who " knew their duty, but who did it 
not." Let us see what he says about duly. " That sin must 
at once be abandoned," says Mr. F., " is a proposition which 
admits of no debate. If slavery be a crime, the consequences 
of abolition should not be considered at ail." In his intro- 
ductory letter, speaking of Mr. "Wayland's former treatment 
of slavery, calling it a sin and yet admitting that the gospel 
allows of its continuance, and "prescribes the duties suited to 
both parties (the masters and slaves) in their present condi- 
tion," he exclaims — " The Lord Jesus and the apostles teach- 
ing expediency ! they quailed through fear of 
p3 



100 REVIEW OF 

consequences ! And through fear of consequences, the Holy 
Spirit has given us a canon of Scriptures, containing minute 
directions as to the duties of master and slave without a word 
(?) as to emancipation ! Suppose that our Missionaries should 
be detected thus winking at idolatry, and tampering with 
crime in heathen lands. . . . Nothing but this unyield- 
ing, uncompromising condemnation of every sin could content 
him (Paul) ; yet, as to ' the unutterable abomination of sla- 
very,' he is a temporizing palterer. . . . Craven and 
faithless Herald ! And, after this, with what face could he 
say, ' I have kept back nothing' — ' I have not shunned to 
declare the whole counsel of God V " 

I do not call in question the propriety of this keen sarcasm 
of Mr. Fuller upon the go-betweenism, or as Mr. F. would 
call it, half-truthfulness, of " the would-be-called" abolitionists 
of the Wayland school ; but how does Mr. F. himself prac- 
tice ? He shall answer for himself. " I urged the abrogation 
of this law. The President, however, a gentleman of age, 
experience and exalted humanity, desired permission to strike 
out that clause." 

Did he yield? If so, would he not, to use his own words, 
be like that " temporizing palterer, Paul ?" Now, then, for 
the " boldness of Peter and John." We shall have, at least, the 
example of one modern Apostle who will not " quail through 
fear of consequences." Yet ("Caesar had a fever once, when 
he was in Spain ; and, when the fit was on him," &c.) Mr. 
Fuller does say — "And, when I had considered his reasons, 
and seen the character of the incendiary publications with 
which the South had just before been deluged, — works evi- 
dently appealing to the worst passions of the slave" (what ! 
the love of freedom the worst of passions ? it, indeed, the slave 
were appealed to at all in any of them, which I seriously 
doubt,) "I was not surprised that the best and most benevo- 



FULLER AND WAYLAXD. 101 

lent individuals should regard the provision as necessary, and 
wise, and even kind. I had, of course, to yield !" 

I may not. " through fear of consequences," which Mr. F. 

has so well taught me by precept and to disregard, 

overlook two or three facts which will assuredly cast some 
light on some of the foregoing statements. 

1. Seven years ago, this gentleman, as I have before said, 
wrote a reply to an "Address to the South," when he said — 
" I have again and again received pamphlets on the subject 
of slavery," &c. " Let the sums now expended in printing 
inflammatory libels," &c. " We have bestowed on this sub- 
ject (slavery) the most serious and devout attention." In the 
" postscript" he says — " Just as I am sending this, here comes 

another favor ! Address of the Rev. before the Female 

Anti-Slavery Society of Cincinnati." The writer of this 
address was W. H. Brisbane, a converted slaveholder, who, 
6even years ago, was sending his " inflammatory libels" into 
the South. But, at least three years after, Mr. Fuller wrote 
"urging the abrogation of said law." "When," says he, " I 
had considered his (the President's) reasons, . . I had 
to yield." 

This is that bold man, who would regard Paul as " a tem- 
porizing palterer — craven and faithless Herald !" if he were 
to have " kept back any thing, through fear of consequences." 
What but this same " fear " induced Mr. F. " to yield," so 
that he " kept back" what he had written, " urging the abro- 
gation of the most important" (most injurious) " law — that 
forbidding slaves to be taught to read ;" and this yielding to 
considerations showing the law to be " necessary," was at a 
time, when he would persuade us those oppressive laws were 
" virtually repealed by universal practice." How, if this law 
were " a dead letter," was its existence " necessary, wise and 
kind V — and would Mr. Fuller's erasure of his remarks from 
Fi 



102 REVIEW OF 

his letter to an "Agricultural Society" revive this " necessary" 
but " dead" law] It seems that the bold man " through fear" 
of the " consequences" which might result from saying a few 
words to only the ears of a company of slaveholders, not a 
slave being present to hear, " kept back" his honest opinions 
against " the most important" of the oppressive laws of the 
South. Well, then, may he deem it best, " of course, to yield," 
in case of any other, less important, law, and so go for every 
existing slave law, by "considerations" of an " expediency" 
which he professes to hold in utter, soul-loathing abhorrence. 
Yes : he must, to be consistent, go for the resurrection of 
every other " dead" law. Say not, I treat him disrespectfully. 
The water which falls on him, is poured from his own vessel, 
and is of his own procuring ; if foul, I have not fouled it. 

Here, if any where, we have an example to prove that, 
the " passion " for slavery " is stronger than the clearest 
truth ;" for no truth is clearer to the mind of even Mr. F. than 
that the law against which he wrote in that letter, ought to be 
abrogated ; — at any rate, he had had time enough to become 
acquainted with the " considerations ;" or will he tell us of 
any which are not familiar to every slaveholder and to all of 
us — viz. that, if the slaves are "taught to read," they will 
be restless in their condition, and may know too much of 
"their rights" to remain in slavery! These are weighty 
" considerations" with every slaveholder ; but Mr. F. knew 
them years before, and, also, the character of the Northern 
"publications" which had long before been often sent to him. 
I think it possible that the " considerations" which caused 
him " to yield," savored more of arguments (stripes, the pen- 
itentiary with Mr. Torrey, and others — tar and feathers, &c.) 
familiar to the "sons of thunder" in the South, when they 
wish to dissuade any one, even though it be a brother slave- 
holder, from saying aught against their "Patriarchal" rights, 



FULLER AND WAYLAXD. 103 

lest abolitionists might use the fact, or lest, perchance, the 
tender-hearted brother follow the example of the "many 1 ' he 
has known "who have turned abolitionists and gone to the 
North." 

On his own showing, Mr. F. is responsible for the continu- 
ance of this " most important law ;" and, on the ground of his 
connection with all slaveholders, as a "party," agreeably with 
his own views of the responsibilities of the members of a 
"party" for "the wicked and mischievous measures of the 
party," he is responsible for all the slave laws enacted by his 
" party." And, on this latter ground, he must answer for 
every one of those "abuses" which he condemns — these 
" abuses" include the sufferings attendant upon the domestic 
traffic in slaves, arising from the separation of the dearest 
relatives — the cruelties experienced in the chained slave 
coffies, driven by merciless wretches invested with " irrespon- 
sible power," and employing the best of their ingenuity in 
devising new modes of annoying the poor victims of their 
cupidity. His responsibilities stop not short of all the priva- 
vations, too numerous, and, many of them too shameful for 
words to describe — nay, they stop not short of every one of 
the horrors of the foreign slave trade : for the entire mountain 
weight of all these evils is thrown upon the slaves by " the 
party" to which he attaches himself, and among whom he 
stands up in support of slavery, and with whose vociferations 
he unites his voice against all who proclaim " Liberty to the 
captive." 

We will now view Mr. Fuller in another light. He, all the 
way, contends for slavery, and against what he calls the abuses 
of slavery We have just seen how he disposes of one of these 
abuses, that law against slaves being taught to read, yielding to 
the continuance, nay, the resuscitation and enforcement of this 
worst of abuses. Eut how does he deal with slavery itself? 



104 REVIEW OF 

I have before shown that he professes to lament its existence, 
and not to think its perpetuation proper, if possible. Never- 
theless,!^ says God instituted it, and therefore, it is not a sin. 
He says, " the character of this (slavery) according to the 
eternal principles of morality, is not affected by any human 
enactments." "With these weapons, they did extirpate at 
once from among Christians the Roman system of slavery, — 
but slavery itself— softened and so entirely changed by Christ- 
ianity, that the relation between the parties was one of justice 
and love — they not only did not attack, but permitted, both 
by iheir precepts and conduct " p. 214. 

Bring into proximity with these pretensions of slavery being 
in agrapment with Christianity, the following statements of 
Mr. Fuller. 

1. " The character of slavery, according to the eternal prin- 
ciples of morality, is not affected by any human enactments. 

2. " May not the most zealous abolitionist be satisfied with 
the concession that slavery, if not restrained by law, is despot- 
ism." Or, as he defines it in another instance, " irresponsible 
power," which he admits can not safely be,i. e., ought not to 
be entrusted to any man. 

As Mr. F. would not be understood to advocate any thing 
which he regards as sinful, some may be surprised at the con- 
cession here made, supposing, very naturally, that no Ameri- 
can can be found, who esteems despotism sinless, both politi- 
cally and morally. But such men are mistaken. Here is 
one who actually does say — " Politically and ethically, I 
have proved that despotism itself is not necessarily a sin." p. 
166. It must be a wonderful man who can prove every pro- 
position to be true, and every action or practice to be righteous. 
"Even the power of the Roman master, though perfectly despot- 
ic, was not in itself a sin. . . We (Christians at the South) 
believe that all just moral institutes are only an EXPANSION 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 105 

of these golden maxim?, ' Whatsoever ye would that men 
should do unto you, do ye also unto ihem ;' and ' Thou shak 
love thy neighbor as thyself.' The reader now sees how easy 
it is, after all, to prove despotism sinless ; — only " expand the 
golden rule," and what sin will it not take in and make holy ? 
Mr. F's quotation from the Bishop of London on another occa- 
sion applies well here ; " what is this expansion? expansion with 
a vengeance !" But he musl before have proved despotism sin - 
less, or he would not thus place slavery and despotism among 
just moral statutes. Yes ; his proof lies in the Greek word, 
despotes, this word signifying both a tyrant and any ruler or 
master. 1 shall consider this argument presently. 

In regard to "the concession" that " slavery is despotism," 
I reply that it does satisfy an " abolitionist" not more " zeal- 
ous" than myself, that Mr, F. has done right in making it, and 
that he has, by making it, completely subverted all his labored 
argument from the beginning to the end of his letters, by 
which he has done the best he could to sever " slavery itself" 
from its " abuses," and to make it sinless. For " the conces- 
sion is that, " unrestrained by law, slavery is despotism." 
So, aside altogether from " its abuses," leave " slavery to 
" itself," and it "is despotism ;" of course, "despotism" in 
the ordinary, and, as this word is always used in English, the 
bad sense. The Greeks used the word despotes in both a 
bad and a good sense, as Mr. F. has shown ; but the English 
never do use it in a good sense, even when they apply it to 
the sovereign of a nation. They would no sooner submit to 
the government of "an absolute monarch," or despot, than 
would "the most zealous" republican. A despot could not 
keep the throne a day in England. This is certainly the 
sense of " the concession," or Mr. F. intended to act the 
Jesuit in making it, telling a truth in words, but meaning 
another thing, which craftiness Mr. F. would not thank me 



106 REVIEW OF 

for imputing to him. I take " the concession," therefore, to 
mean what it declares, that " slavery, unrestrained by law, i3 
despotism," or unjust and tyrannical government. But how 
does this look in the light of that other declaration of his, 
that "slavery is not affected by any human enactments 1" 

The "human enactments" restraining it, do not affect it, 
then. It remains, despite of them all, just like "despotism" 
or "irresponsible power," the same bad thing still. The 
Hyaena " restrained" by his chains and his cage, is in " itself" 
the same ferocious beast as when ranging the wilderness and 
'* frightening dull night" with his cries for blood. Chain and 
cage him, and name him " a coo-ing dove," and feed him with 
Southern " corn and sweet potatoes and watermelons," the 
beast is the same blood-thirsty beast still ; or, in Mr. Fuller's 
own words — " is unaffected by any human enactments." No 
man could have done better than Mr. F. has done, to sustain 
the declaration made to me in a letter some ten years ago, 
by that talented gentleman and strong and perspicuous wri- 
ter, George Keely, viz : " Slavery does not belong to that 
class of things which can be mended — to make it better, you 
must destroy it." 

Let no man, hereafter, talk to us of mitigating, or modify- 
ing slavery ; if you " affect" it at all by restraining" it, you 
must destroy it, or it, the principle, the nature, the root, the 
relation, stands up in all its own terrible hideousness and un- 
softened savageness and cruel disregard of human rights. 
Feed it, not with the salads or conserves of kind treatment of 
the slaves, but with its own proper aliment, human " liberty 
—bondage— nothing more," and what more could you do to grat- 
ify and strengthen it ? Do this, and then call it a "domestic — a 
Patriarchal — a Republican — a Christian, institution," or what 
you will, it remains " unaffected by any human" christenings 
as well as "enactments." Turn this "despotism" — this 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 107 

" irresponsible power," loose, i. e., allow it to exist — once 
allow that it is "right" for "one man to urge by a violent 
motive another man to labor for him," not at all like the childr 
under parental, or the citizen under civil authority, laboring 
for themselves in laboring in conformity with the laws of 
righteous government, but " for him" — for his behoof and 
benefit — not owning or possessing any thing, or hoping ever 
to do so, but " for him" in every sense of the words, " without 
contract or consent" — once only allow this to be "the right 
of one man" over " another man," and then go to your Legis- 
ture for "restraining enactments," as you may be disposed, 
and Mr. Fuller tells you that it, " slavery, is not" to be 
"affected by any" such mockery of legislation. First of all, 
legislate to the "one man" " irresponsible power," and then 
pretend to modify or curtail that power ! Who does not see 
that a Legislature so acting stultifies itself] And, then, after 
all this, Mr. Fuller has the effrontery to tell us that the slave 
may be held as such even by "contract." "Slavery is only 
bondage; and this may be voluntary and by contract." He 
redoubles his effrontery when he adds — "and there may be 
no obligation whatever to labor, since a man who should sell 
himself to another, on condition that he be allowed to sleep 
out his life, would be, in all respects, a slave." 

So, then, where "one man is to urge another by a violent 
motive to labor for him, without the contract or consent" of 
the laborer, the latter is under no obligation whatever to labor, 
but "sells himself to sleep out his life." "Why did not our 
astute logician take " only" one step more, and say that the 
" condition" of voluntary sale of himself to be a slave " may 
be" that he shall be the master, the despot, the Patriarch, the 
" owner, to all intents and purposes whatsoever," of the man 
who buys him 1 This might have " satisfied the most zealous 
abolitionist" with slavery. Then we might all, " by volun- 



108 REVIEW OF 

tary contract, become slaves." But, in that case, who would 
be the masters 1 Does not Mr. Fuller see that the word 
master would then mean slave, and slave mean what master 
now means 1 Therefore, no more would be done than to 
interchange the meaning of the two words, master and slave, 
unless it be to raise a somewhat new conflict with his own 
definition of slavery, which I will not waste time to mention. 

Does not every one know that a name is a trifle, but that 
the thing now signified by this name, is every thing to the 
purpose in a controversy like this 1 Call Freedom Slavery, 
but leave me in the enjoyment of the privileges enjoyed under 
what is now called Freedom, and I will envy no man the name 
of being free, after that name is once made to denote that 
" condition" now called slavery. Suppose, then, that the 
word slavery is not to be found in the Bible, but that the 
" condition" we signify by it, is recognized there and is either 
approved or condemned, it is, in the highest sense, proper to 
say, either that slavery, the "condition," is approved or con- 
demned by the Bible. How foolish it is, therefore, to deny 
that slavery — the "condition" — the thing itself — is condemn- 
ed in the Bible, because the thing only is there condemned. 

I stated at the beginning of this review, that Mr. Fuller's 
argument is reared on a fallacy ; and I can not but think 
that the reader now clearly perceives in what that fallacy con- 
sists, viz : the placing the words " the right" — (" slavery is 
the right," &c.) in such connection that it is impossible to 
make, even though urging with violent motives, the connect- 
ed declarations harmonize or coalesce with these words. 
Only strike out these words and supply their place with the 
words, the wrong, the injustice done by one man in urging 
another to labor for him without his contract or consent, and 
every one of the remaining declarations contained in his 
definition of slavery, will take its place with ease, and the 



FULLER AND WAYLA.VD. 109 

result will be perfect consistency and harmony. Then it 
would read — " Slavery is the'* injustice &c. — " To urge by a 
violent motive," in such a case is unjust — because the man so 
urged ought to labor for himself, and for those whom God has 
entrusted to his parental or guardian care, "because slavery 
holds and uses men, as mere means for the accomplishment of 
ends, of which ends iheir own interests are not a part — thus 
annihilating the sacred and eternal distinction between a per- 
son and a thing — a distinction " crowned" by the Creator of it 
" with glory and honor," " a little lower than the angels." 

It is absurd to compare slavery with the relation of parent 
and child, because in the latter case, the child is presumed to 
be secured from oppression by the strong, almost omnipotent 
power of parental love ; whereas, the place of this principle is 
not presumed, but is clearly acknowledged by Mr. F. to be sup- 
plied by self-interest, " to labor for him," wielding what by no 
means belongs to any parent, " irresponsible power," the father 
rendering himself equally liable to punishment by God and man 
for injustice done to his son, or to his daughter, as for injury 
to other free persons. I might but will not, descend to certain 
specific acts of wrong, particularly in the case of a daughter. 
The inducements to injustice being strongly counteracted by 
parental love and every consideration of true interest and du- 
ty, he is accounted, every where, a monster in gudt, who can 
break, over all these Heaven-constructed ramparts around the 
rights of his children, and do to them deeds of wrong and 
shame. Indeed, Mr. Fuller is undoubtedly aware, that it 
commonly requires of the slaveholder the most rigid exercise 
of his despotic, " irresponsible power," so far to counteract the 
impulses of the natural relationship of parents to children, as 
to " urge," constrain, compel the slave parent to forego the ex- 
ercise of his rights towards the child, for its protection and gen- 
eral good. Here it is seen that the " irresponsible power" and 
G 



110 



REVIEW OF 



the parental power so conflict that it is impossible for them to 
•f walk together;" and to coerce the parental into submission to 
the despotic, the entire power of the State and the Nation, it 
would seem, is necessary sufficiently to fortify the latter for the 
barbarous and unnatural task. 

In the absence of such affection as that which naturally, 
from the very constitution of man, belongs to the parental rela- 
tion, and conspires with every pure propensity and passion, 
to protect the child, this " irresponsible power" of the slave- 
holder (the more injurious, if conferred by the State or Nation- 
al Government, and infinitely worse, if it could be conferred by 
the Divine Government) stretches its iron hands, and grasps, 
not here and there some of the rights of its victims, but the 
man himself; and, "without his contract or consent," with him 
all his rights, from the right of owning his own wife and child- 
ren, up through the long and precious series of rights, even to 
the last and highest of all — the right of worshiping God, ac- 
cording to the decisions of his own conscience, enlightened by 
the written word of God. This word the enslaved man is for- 
bidden by state law to be taught to read ; and, therefore, what- 
ever other privileges he may be suffered, by the grace of his 
" despot," to enjoy, stern necessity excludes that light, without 
which the conscience can no more discern the right and the 
wrong, and find its way to heaven, than can the eye discern 
objects, and safely and successfully pursue a long, yet indispen- 
sable journey without light. Parental love not thus deals with 
its offspring ; and yet this prohibitory law, the law forbidding 
the literary instruction of slaves, even Mr.F. thinks "necessary, 
wise and even kind," under the circumstances. 

It is also, a great absurdity to compare the irresponsible 
power of the slaveholder with the power of any national gov- 
ernment, except an absolute despotism ; and I am yet to be 
informed that either American republicanism, to which Mr. 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. Ill 

Fuller owes his allegiance as a citizen, or Bible truth, to which 
he owes his faith and obedience as a christian, regards a des- 
potism as a rightful authority over any nation. " It is unsafe 
to trust any man, or any class of men, with irresponsible pow- 
er," is the grand maxim which has beheaded thousands of des- 
pots, and would quickly make any man a head shorter, who 
should undertake to wield such power over these States, let 
him plead, as he might, the want of sufficient intelligence, or 
virtue, or beauty, among the people for self-government or re- 
publicanism. And that man who advocates the doctrine of 
despotism among the people of these States, is a foe to repub- 
licanism — an enemy of the country, and forfeits his right of 
citizenship in it ; and consequently ought not to be allowed to 
go at large, disseminating such principles of " incendiarism" 
as, if they were to be adopted to any considerable extent, 
would invade the liberties of all the people, and tend to the ut- 
ter subversion of the Freedom of this Republic. 

Let that American who meditates such treason against jus- 
tice and his country, relinquish so foul a design. " Procul, 
procul, este profani." 

Take not my word for the Anti-Republican, and Anti-Re- 
ligious character of slavery ; but let the word of a statesman, 
of no inconsiderable distinction among the great men of the 
South, (" j'uit Ilium") have some weight, even with the pre- 
sent generation. Thomas Jefferson, though a slaveholder, 
expressed himself thus, in his published correspondence — 
" What an incomprehensible machine is man ! who can endure 
toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment and death itself, in vindica- 
tion of his own liberty ; and the next moment be deaf to all 
those motives whose power supported him through his trial . 
and inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which is 
fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose in 
rebellion to oppose. . . When the measure of their tears 



112 REVIEW OF 

shall be full, when their groans shall have involved heaven it- 
self in darkness — doubtless, a God ol justice will awaken to 
their distress ; and, by diffusing light and liberality among their 
oppressors, or, at length, by his exterminating thunder, mani- 
fest his attention to the things of this world, and that they are 
not left to the guidance of a blind fatality." 

If a man reputed a Deist could speak thus of slavery, a man 
calling himself a christian will do well to pause, when he finds 
himself degrading Christianity below the level of Deism, by 
imputing to it sentiments which Deism repudiates with horror. 
The Deist's " God of Nature" will awake to avenge the slave, 
if the Bible's God shall not — certainly, if the Bible's God gives 
countenance to such oppression. Then, there will be war in 
Heaven, in good earnest. But we are not shut up to a so 
blasphemous hypothesis. See Psalm 12. " For the oppres- 
sion of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, 
saith Jehovah ; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth 
at him." Here we have a " thus saith the Lord," Mr. Fuller. 
Who is the poor, the needy ? who suffers oppression ] whose 
sighs besiege Heaven, if the slave is not emphatically the man 
here described? — every slave, even your own, who has not the 
" right" to labor for himself, and thus provide for his own, but 
must be urged by a violent motive to labor for another, all his 
life, under the alleged right of that usurper of all his rights ? 
See also, the word " spoiled" (robbed of every thing) in Jer. 22: 
'* Deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor" 

But what shall be said, when this slave power practically 
(louder than words) avows itself irresponsible to God, and in- 
deed says it is God ? — when Jehovah is robbed of his right of 
having his Revelation read by those whom He commands to 
read it ? " Search the Scriptures," is a command of God ad- 
dressed to every man, every inhabitant of the land, and it can 
not be disobeyed, where known, without guilt attaching some 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 113 

where. Am I to be answered here, that the slave does not 
know that this is God's will, because he can not read even so 
much of the Bible, and therefore he is innocent] Where now 
is the " temporizing palterer — the craven and faithless herald," 
— who consents to, and so upholds those laws which incapaci- 
tate the poor benighted slave ? — where the minister of Christ, 
who, when he had written his knowledge of this wrong, this 
high-handed interference with the rights of both God and man, 
afterwards " contracted" to put his light under a bushel, to 
please the President of an Agricultural Society of Slavehold- 
ers ? Never was a fairer opportunity offered to any minister, 
for bearing a true and bold testimony against a great sin, than 
was afforded to Mr. Fuller on the occasion described by him- 
self. This was the very matter — " the most important" of all 
the slave laws, demanding above all others, therefore, corre- 
sponding superlatively severe animadversion and unqualified 
condemnation. But the duty was " buried in a napkin," and 
there it lies rolled up for the judgment, stamped with the name 
of Richard Fuller. Would John the Baptist have let such a 
moment pass unimproved ? — or do we not see his venerable 
head borne to his murderer, as a glorious proof of christian 
faithfulness in the forerunner of the Messiah, and a damning 
evidence against a licentious and murderous civil government 
in the person of Herod, the king ? Would Paul thus leave an 
Agrippa, or a Felix unwarned ? Or would Daniel thus bow 
down and worship an image, though the government set it up? 
Or would Moses thus leave his oppressed brethren in Egyptian 
darkness and oppression, (a less dense darkness and less cruel 
oppression, however, than American christians (?) inflict on 
their brethren in bonds) because, by so doing, he could have 
been held in repute and friendship by Pharaoh ? Did those 
men of God obey the powers that be, when those powers re- 
quired obedience to such laws a were not ordained of God, 
g2 



114 REVIEW OF 

but were hostile in principle and requirement to His laws, 
which are, like himself, in all cases, KOLY, JUST and 
GOOD ? Certainly not, for the most obvious of reasons, that 
obedience to such laws of the civil power, is disobedience of 
the infinitely higher laws of the great and only Potentate, the 
King of the kings of the earth. 

On this same rock of the priority and supremacy of the Di- 
vine government over the powers that be, though these little 
" powers are ordained of God" to execute righteousness and to 
punish vice, — on this same rock of the supreme authority of 
God over man, was it that our Revolutionary fathers planted 
their feet and the engine of rebellion against the British gov- 
ernment. To that government they owed as sacred allegiance 
as we now owe to ?he government of this Republic ; but, 
when they saw and felt that the powers that be were depart- 
ing from the righteous purpose for which they had been or- 
dained of God ; those God-fearing men made their solemn 
appeal from the inferior to the supreme tribunal ; and their ap- 
peal was sustained, and the judgment of the inferior was re- 
versed. 

But what is the doctrine now taught by Mr. Fuller] Not 
that resistance of tyrants is obedience to God, but that acqui- 
escence in a tyrant's will, when that will requires the degrad- 
ation of a portion of our fellow men in order to our own ele- 
vation or emolument, is both our " right" and duty. " I, of 
course, yielded," says this professed minister of Jesus Christ, 
when the President of the Agricultural Society advised me 
to erase what I had written against the most important of the 
abusive laws of Slavery, " the law forbidding the literary in- 
struction of the colored people." 

And this is the man who, in the pride of his piety, can not 
stoop to a controversy with Abolitionists! Verily, my breth- 
ren, in this we have but one thing to mourn for, and one thing 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 115 

to be ashamed of. We may well mourn over a professed min- 
ister of Christ, so false to his sacred commission, and be 
ashamed that an American Baptist has done a deed which will 
deepen and prolong, I pray that it may not perpetuate, the al- 
ready sufficiently odious infamy of this Republic, the father of 
whose free institutions (a celebrated and very venerable Pro- 
fessor in a Presbyterian Theological Seminary told his class 
some twenty-five years ago in my presence) was the Baptist 
Roger Williams. This Baptist chose to suffer affliction 
among the people of God, rather than enjoy the pleasures of 
sin for a season ; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater 
riches than all the treasures in Salem, Ms., or Beaufort, S. C. 
In view of the act of Mr. F. to which I allude, I sincerely 
pray — Lord, lay not this sin to his charge. But I can not con- 
ceive how Mr. W., after having read Mr. Fuller's own account 
of this deed of singular wickedness and shameful dereliction 
of duty, could regard the enactor of it with so much delight, 
as he evidently does in his rejoinder, telling him that " all he 
asked, if he understood his views, was that these be carried 
out in practice ;" and that they " could unite in trying to make 
every other slaveholder just such a master as he is." But 
Mr. Wayland, and not I, stands responsible for that. 

It is no new thing, however, let it be observed, that a pro- 
fessed minister of Christ should yield to the considerations 
suggested by some lordly despot, when he. had thought this 
most important law wrong, unjust and cruel, and was there- 
fore on the point of pleading for its abrogation. I doubt not, 
scores, before Mr. F., have been in the same predicament, 
from the year 1740, when South Carolina became convinced 
that it was " necessary, wise, and even kind" to restrain the 
christian people of that State from bestowing their labors on 
the education of the colored people, and especially the slaves, 
and for this kind purpose, enacted a law against this right of 



116 REVIEW OF 

the people to teach whom ihey would to write their thoughts 
and then to read the thoughts of others. 

This law is against the rights of the White people. They 
are prohibited. They are forbidden to teach, though Mr. F. 
has preferred to use another form of speech, which seems to 
the hasty reader to imply that the law acts directly on the 
colored people. His words are, — " the law prohibiting the 
slaves being taught," &c. This is the same thing, however, 
for the free whites are the teachers, and Mr. F. well knows 
that the penalty of fine and imprisonment, falls not on the slave, 
who is taught, but on the person who teaches. Mr. F. ought 
to have been explicit, and said so. The only subject of this 
law, responsible for breaking it, is the teacher, although the 
slave is the object against whose interests the barbarous enact- 
ment is designed to operate, in cutting him off from the privi- 
lege of being taught, and so entombing his intellect alive, and 
leaving him as a moral being, to grope his way through dark- 
ness to an unknown, unexpected and unprepared-for eternity. 
I doubt not, many a slaveholder's conscience condemns, abhors 
this law, and to sustain the law the man is obliged to sin 
against his own conscience. This, I believe, is true of Mr. 
Fuller. And, yet, astounding fact, and undeniable proof of 
his guilt, he allows himself to be persuaded by the President 
of an Agricultural Society of Slaveholders, to place his own 
heel on the righteous verdict which his conscience, enlightened 
by the word of God, had moved his fingers to write against the 
odious law. 

At this point I leave the reader to consider the gross absurd- 
ties of the position taken by Mr. F., that slave government, 
which necessarily involves the necessity of legislating ignorance 
upon the slave, is the same thing with that righteous govern- 
ment ordained of God, which the powers that be are by God 
required to execute for the protection of every subject, espe- 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 117 

cially the weak, in the enjoyment of his rights— for the enlight- 
enment of the ignorant, especially, the most benighted ; and for 
the elevation of the most degraded. 

I am aware that tyrants have always contrived to degrade 
their subjects ; but I am not now dealing with a professedly 
worldly-wise politician, but with a man, who, claiming to be 
a worshiper of God, and a believer in the Christian religion, 
professes to desire the establishment of righteousness among 
men. This it is which fills me with alarm for the church, and 
for my country, and with shame for the man, while I read the 
anti-republican and anti-christian avowal, that the law of slav- 
ish ignorance is " necessanj, wise, and even kind." How 
profound must be the ignorance of the man, who could even 
tolerate such a law, and be guiltless ; and how fearful the guilt 
of him, who, perceiving the turpitude of the law, could with- 
draw his condemnation of it, and leave it to live and grow 
stronger, and perpetrate on millions its work of death. 

I will not stop now to inquire whether this law had its origin 
in a consciousness of the superior intellectual capacities of the 
black over the white man, and a consequent jealousy and fear 
lest the former, if allowed equal opportunities for improvement, 
might soon excel the latter. Whatever was its origin, the 
law exists, and Mr. F. is convinced that, though it is very 
wrong and shameful, it is " necessary, wise, and even kind." 
I doubt not, many a slaveholder condemns, abhors the law 
more than Mr. F. does, and yet, like him, sustains it. Pre- 
cisely the same considerations have operated to convince oth- 
ers of its necessity, if not of its kindness. For, though " mod- 
ern abolitionism" dates back only to 1830, there had been, 
long before, friends of jnstice and the slave, who had written 
and spoken against the " sum of all villanies," as Mr. Wesley 
had truly called slavery. To him, I may, nay, I must add 
Mr. Whitefield, since Mr. F. has thought proper to claim him 
g3 



118 REVIEW OF 

as a witness on his side of the controversy, and Mr. Wayland 
makes no objection, I think. In a letter from Mr. Whitefield 
in Georgia, in " 1739," " to the slaveholders of Maryland, Vir- 
ginia, North and South Carolina; and Georgia," this celebrat- 
ed man writes as follows : — 

" As I lately passed through your provinces on my way hith- 
er, 1 was sensibly touched" (think of the date, 108 years ago,) 
"with a fellow feeling of the miseries of the poor negroes . . 
. . Sure I am, it is sinful to use them as bad, nay, worse 
than if they were brutes; whatever particular exceptions there 
maybe, (as I would charitably hope there are some) I fear, the 
generality of you, that own negroes, are liable to such a charge; 
for your slaves, I believe, work as hard, if not harder than the 
horses whereon you ride. These, after they have done their 
work, are fed and taken proper care of; but many negroes, 
when wearied with labor in your plantations, have been oblig- 
ed to grind their own corn, after their return home. Your 
dogs are caressed and fondled at your tables ; but your slaves 
who are frequently styled dogs, or beasts, have not an equal 
privilege. They are scarcely permitted to pick up the crumbs 
which fall from their master's table. Not to mention what 
numbers have been given up to the inhuman usage of cruel 
task masters, who by their unrelenting scourges have 'ploughed 
their backs and made long their furrows,' and at length brought 
them to the grave ! When passing along, I have viewed your 
plantations cleared and cultivated, many spacious houses built 
and the owners af them ' faring sumptuously every day/ my 
blood has frequently run cold within me, to consider how ma- 
ny of your slaves had neither convenient food to eat, nor prop- 
er raiment to put on, notwithstanding most of the comforts 
you enjoy, are solely owing to their indefatigable labors ! The 
Scripture says, ' Thou shait not muzzle the ox that treadeth 
out the corn. Does God care for oxen V And will he not 



FULLER AND WAYI.AND. 119 

care for negroes ? Undoubtedly he will. ' Go to now, ye rich 
men, weep and howl for the miseries that shall come upon 
you. Behold, the provision of the poor negroes, who have 
reaped down your fields, which is by you denied them, cri- 
kth ; and the cries of them which have reaped, are entered in- 
to the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth' ! ! ! . . . God is the 
same to-day as he was yesterday, and he will continue the 
same for ever. He does not reject the prayer of the poor and 
destitute, nor disregard the cry of the meanest negro. The 
blood of them spilt for these many years" (108 years more 
now) " in your respective provinces, will ascend up to heaven 
against you." See in Benezet's Appeal. 

Read this, and then say whether Mr. Fuller has a witness 
in YVhitefield whom he would like to call to the stand ; and yet 
he has spoken for him, and said — " Whitefield could not be- 
lieve slavery to be a sin." It would seem difficult for him so 
to believe, after what I have just quoted from him ! Where is 
the proof sustaining the dishonor done to the memory of the 
pious dead ? But Mr. F. must not be doubted, or you destroy 
his argument ; for what, that has even the semblance of proof 
in it, can be found in all of his famous letters, ingenious as they 
are, if his bare, bold, confident, proud, disdainful, contemptu- 
ous asseverations are taken from them ? And yet he has been 
applauded for his lovely spirit ! He does, indeed, appeal to 
the scriptures for authority, and strives hard to make them tes- 
tify for him, like the hard-pushed party on trial before a crimi- 
nal court, who, without a single witness having spoken for 
him, cried out to the Judge with great apparent astonishment 
and vehemence, declaring that those who had testified were 
his witnesses after all ; for he had summoned every one of 
them, and expected to pay their fees. This fact he hoped the 
Jury would not overlook in making up their righteous verdict. 
But how was his astonishment increased on hearing the Judge 



120 REVIEW OF 

charge the Jury, that, if they should find the prisoner guilty on 
the testimony of his own witnesses, it would not be their duty 
in bringing in their verdict, to commend him to mercy, since 
no possible doubt of his guilt could remain in such a case. 

This is precisely the case of Mr. F. His averment is that 
Mr. Whitefield did not think slavery sinful ; but Mr. Whitefield, 
when called upon the stand, testifies as we have heard him. 
He had before called as witnesses for slavery the Old and New 
Testaments, but they had both testified as the voice of God, 
that such testimony they could never give, so long as God hat- 
eth robbery, for Mr. Fuller avows that he commits robbery and 
means to commit it, by " urging other men to labor for him 
without their contract or consent." 

True, he does not tell the court what the violent motive he 
uses, is, but that he reserves to his own election, implying, of 
course, that it is such as he may prefer, only it shall be under- 
stood to be, as in the case of that one most important of all vi- 
olent motives — " the law prohibiting slaves being taught to 
read" — " necessary, wise and even kind to the slave" ! ! — al- 
though the slave may esteem it to be not quite so kind, since 
he must regard it as unkind, or it would not be to him a vio- 
lent motive, but a persuasive one — moral suasion, for instance 
— and I do not forget, if Mr. Fuller does, that it is the slave 
alone who is to be moved by the " motive" and, therefore, he 
is necessarily the only person whose opinion of the motive is 
to be taken in the premises. What greater nonsense than to 
call any violent motive, either necessary, or wise, or kind to 
the subject of it, when he has done nothing to merit punish- 
ment, and, especially, when no man has from God any right 
to constrain his services. But Mr. F. would demur, and say 
that his crime is a refusal to labor for him without contract or 
consent. 

Yet, Mr. F. is guilty of the same crime towards me. In 



FULLER AND WAY'LAND. 121 

writing his letters to Mr. W., instead of laboring for me, he 
has labored against me, without my contract, to be sure ; but 
let me only, " nothing more," require him to labor for me, and 
write another series of letters as much in conformity with the 
eternal principles of justice and love, and of the word of God, 
as these are at war with those principles, and he would refuse 
to labor thus for me, probably ; though this he will, I hope, 
find to be necessary, wise, and even kind to himself yet to do. 
In such case of refusal, I might be obliged to urge him by a 
violent motive to labor for me. Would he then leap to the 
Bible to hunt up Patriarchal and even Divine authority to es- 
tablish my right so to urge him? " Ah, that alters the case." 
So it does, reader, but not the principle of action. Let the 
reader, or Mr, F. himself, (though I no more seek controversy 
with him, than he with the abolitionists) undertake to frame 
a single sentence showing that the principle isnot the same in 
both cases, that between me and Mr. F., and that between 
Mr.F. and the slave, either I or he resorting to the violent mo- 
tive scheme of having work done, and I venture to predict 
that he will find himself semper et ubique (always and every 
where) in framing that sentence. I will even help him to be- 
gin, as follows — 

lam a white man, and the slave is — , what? White 
Greek?, enslaved by thousands, forages, though not descend- 
ants of Ham, for example. White, half-whits, yellow child- 
ren of the Southern gentlemen (.Mr. F. must not complain, if 
no exceptions are made in his favor at this point; since, as we 
have seen, he lends his influence to the party doing such 
things) are in slavery by thousands to-day, and their number 
is fast overshadowing the pure African race, and some think, 
tint, in a hundred years more, there will be left scarcely any 
tract s of that race, and so American Slaveholders will then 
have risen to be_masters of white slaves altogether. Black is 



122 REVIEW OF 

not the word then to finish out the sentence I left imperfect. 
Try again — I am a Christian and he, my victim, is a — 
what? 

I thought of saying no more under this head ; but its sol- 
emn importance constrains me to add a few words. What ! 
a christian apply a violent motive to another christian to urge 
him to labor for him, without his contract or consent ! ! — and 
call this a christian act, — " only an expansion of the golden 
rule" 1 Heathenism forbid it ! Tantaene animis coelestibus 
irae ! (can such madness dwell in heavenly minds) — ex- 
claims a heathen poet, in reference to less horrible things than 
this. But listen now, ye who truly love and fear the great 
and only Potentate in the christian church ; for Mr. F. de- 
mands a " thus saith the Lord," before he will yield in this 
case, though he "yielded, of course, to the considerations of 
the President of an Agricultural Society," in favor of the 
most important and cruel and shameful of slave laws, accord- 
ing to his own admission. 

He shall now have " the full amount of his bond" — demand 
— but, let him beware, how by turning his knife to cut " the 
pound of flesh nearest the heart, he spill not one drop of 
blood" — that he deny not that these precious words of the 
Son of God, are a thus saith the Lord against his claim of a 
right such as he describes as belonging to him as a slavehold- 
er. See Matt. xx. 

" But JESUS called them (the disciples) unto him and 
said — Ye know that the princes (hoi archontes) of the Gen- 
tiles exercise dominion (katakurieuousi) over them, (their 
subjects) and they that are great (hoi megaloi) exercise au- 
thority (katexousiazousi) upon them. BUT IT SHALL 
NOT BE SO AMONG YOU : but whosoever will be great 
(megas) among you, let him be your minister (diakonos 
deacon). And whosoever will be chief (protos) among you, 
let him be your servant (doulos). Even as the Son of Man 
came not to be ministered unto (diakonethenai) but to minis- 
ter (diakonesai) and to give his life a ransom for many." 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 123 

This i9 an express prohibition of all slavery. Will Mr. F. 
or any other man deny or doubt it ? The Son of Man came 
to ransom, not enslave, and to instruct and command his dis- 
ciples, and through them the world, that it shall not be the 
practice of christian men to act on the principle of the hea- 
then, that " might makes right" — the lex talionis — urging 
others by violent motives to labor for them, without contract 
or consent. " It shall not be so among you" ! Both by pre- 
cept and example, he gives and enforces this prohibition of ac- 
tion on the principle of despotism, even though mitigated and 
limited. Who, except the Roman Catholics, the Greek 
Church, and such other Hierarchal establishments, has ever 
dared to find in the instructions of Him who came to serve, 
the establishment of any despotism in his Church ? or a right 
conferred on any disciple of His (Mr. F. professes to be one) 
to lord it over God's heritage ? To speak with strictest pro- 
priety, it suits far better the " doctrines of devils," spoken of 
by Paul to Timothy. Baptists, of all christians, ought to take 
heed and repel such a doctrine, or no longer make any pre- 
tensions of being peculiar friends of Liberty, or even disci- 
ples of the meek and lowly Son of God, following him afar 
off. " Lord, have we not taught in thy name V " I never 
knew you ; Depart" &c. Mr. F seems proud of the num- 
ber of Christians among his slaves! 

Again, suppose I am a freeman, and he is a — , what ? 
Why, a slave, of course, is the reply. Not too fast — it is an 
qually free person who is to be made a slave, about whom I 
am inquiring. Who is that ? Some person who is unwill- 
ing to be a slave or no violent motive would be necessary, 
wise or kind, and, though Mr. F, and the laws of man may 
call him so, he asserts his liberty and gives the lie to both, 
and now, therefore, is the time and here the occasion to bring 
Mr. Fuller's definition to bear on the case. It will not be pre- 



124 REVIEW OF 

tended, Mr. Fuller's definition does not pretend, that the per- 
son contracts or consents to be that which he would not be, 
if he should contract — a slave. No. He is one who needs to 
be — it is "necessary, wise and kind" that he be — " urged by a 
violent motive, without his contract or consent, to labor for 
another." The person, of course, refuses so to labor. Surely, 
even Mr. Fuller, who thinks much of the power of his own 
language, will not pretend that such puissance is lodged in 
the definition itself as to be the identical violent motive called 
for to coerce the required labor. So long as the person re- 
fuses, and no violent motive compels the labor, he is not Mr. 
Fuller's or any man's slave. Having tried three times and 
failed, I will surrender the task of framing the required sen- 
tence to others. 

MR. WAYLAND'S CONDUCT OF THE CORRESPONDENCE. 

In my preceding remarks, I have confined myself chiefly to 
Mr. Fuller. Many things have been passed over without 
comment, which are objectionable ; but it has been and still 
is my purpose to take notice of the more important positions 
and arguments — those which more than others are likely to 
leave an injurious impression on the mind of the reader. 

As an honest man, I am under the same obligation to ex- 
pose any false positions and untenable arguments taken and 
used on the part of an avowed opponent of slaveholding a3 
on the other part. Viewing the subject as I do, it always 
gives me pleasure to have any portion of truth relating to 
slavery, exhibited or admitted by any man, any where. 

If Mr. Fuller has, in any case, done this, it is an occasion 
of gladness. 1 oppose not a sentiment because it is held or 
expressed by Mr. F.; neither is any argument less deserving 
of respect because it is used by him. The same is true in re- 
lation to Mr. Wayland. With both of them I am concerned 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 125 

as reasoners, not as men or a9 christians, in this review. If 
both of the writers were infidels, and had written precisely as 
these men do, I ought to treat the reasoning contained in 
their letters, just as I am bound to treat it now. 

Therefore, whatever respect or disrespect I may have for 
their personal character, this may be allowed to have no 
measure of influence with me in examining their words, or 
deciding for or against the merit of their argument ; for, touch- 
ing the soundness or unsoundness of their reasoning, it would 
be as proper to determine on the essential points in a phil- 
osophical or mathematical argument by the reputation of the 
author of it, for talent or scholarship, than which there is no 
greater absurdity, as to believe because others believe in the 
present case. The professor who should teach his class to be- 
lieve any mathematical or philosophical proposition, on the 
ground that Euclid or Sir Isaac Newton believed it, or that it 
had been believed by many mathematicians or philosophers 
of all ages, would be laughed at ; and, if he could show no 
better reason for his own belief of the proposition, he would 
be denied a standing among men of science. Believe the for- 
ty-seventh proposition of Euclid, because Euclid believed it? 
Believe that the earth revolves around its centre daily, and 
moves round the sun annually, because Copernicus and Gali- 
leo and Kepler believed so ? Believe in the correctness of 
any theory of mental philosophy, because either Bacon, or 
Locke, or Stewart, or Read believed it ? Or even believe in 
the Christian religion, because Paul believed it to be from God? 
All such faith, it is every where admitted by truly enlightened 
men, is utterly visionary. 

It is too obvious to require illustration that, in case the 
name of Euclid had been lost, and only his demonstrations had 
come down to us, we should have the same confidence in the 
truth of these demonstrations^ we have now ; and so of the 



126 REVIEW OF 

true system of astronomy and of every other science, that sci- 
ence rests exclusively on the facts and deductions from facts 
with which we are furnished. Even sound religious faith de- 
pends infinitely more on the internal evidence of the truth of 
the Christian religion, than on the opinions of any or all who 
have believed it. 

It will not do, therefore, to admit the correctness of a posi- 
tion assumed by either Mr. Fuller or Mr. Wayland, without 
good and substantial proof. On the contrary, place the de- 
cision of any of the questions discussed by thera on the per- 
sonal qualities of the men, their ability, honesty, kindness or 
other supposed quality, and what will be the result, but that 
the South will take Mr. F.'s views, and the North the views 
of Mr. W., and so, whatever of disagreement exists between 
them, will be established and perpetuated. And if Mr. F. has 
commended more or less of error to his fellow slaveholders, 
and, if Mr. W. has commended any measure of error to the 
people of the North, so much of error will become incorporat- 
ed into the opinions of the American people. The errors of 
Mr. F. will not be confined to the South, but will flow over 
the Northern mind, and the errors of Mr. W. will, in like 
manner, reach the slaveholders of the South. Posterity also, 
will suffer on account of them. 

It becomes every person, then, to bring every one of the 
opinions of both these men to the test of a fair and thorough 
examination. If they shall be found to be true, adopt them 
on their own merits ; but, if found false, reject them for the 
same reason. The slavery-favoring positions of Mr. F., have 
as I think, been shown to be untenable ; and, I think, also, 
that certain admissions made by Mr. W. will appear, on ex- 
amination, to be ils unwarrantable as those positions of Mr, 
F. It belongs to the reader, however, to form his own inde- 
pendent judgment on all these things. 



FULLER AND WAYLANP. 127 

Mr. Wayland has made several admissions which I esteem 
very important, and indeed, so important, av, if true, to leave 
the cause essentially in the hands of the avowed advocate of 
Slavery. To these I now invite the attention of the reader. 

If Mr. Wayland had never occupied any higher rank as a 
scholar, a gentleman, and a minister, than that class of men 
who are commonly expected to take on trust, without examin- 
ation, whatever has been put in circulation so as to become 
report, or is adapted (ad captandum vulgus) to gratify the pru- 
riency of the curious, or the less worthy taste of the lovers of 
calumny, it might not ha\*? been so surprising to see him, as a 
Northern man, seize the favoring opportunity presented by the 
assault of a Southern man, of some distinction, upon Northern 
Abolitionists without discrimination, to acquire some notoriety 
and to secure that species of applause which is cheaply pur- 
chased by uniting with calumniators against those whom, 
from being his immediate neighbors, it would seem most na- 
tural for him to favor and defend. 

To berate one's relatives, is often regarded as indicative of 
a singular frankness and independence and high-minded spir- 
it ; and the same is true, when the objects of assault are so 
circumstanced, as to belong to the neighborhood, or party, or 
society, or church with him who seconds and sustains the as- 
sault made by a stranger, or one of an opposing party, or soci- 
ety, or church. 

Cut who would have been willing to believe such conduct 
possible in the case of " the Author of the Moral Science " ? 
I could not ; and it is with the most sincere regret, that, in 
justice to a large and every way respectable class of Northern 
Baptists, I am constrained to lay before the community a 
statement of the facts in the case. I shall make it with the 
strictest regard to truth. Exaggeration, if ever called for, to 
give pretext for complaint, or to make an ordinary cause look 
II 



128 REVIEW OF 

peculiar and glaring, is not needed on the present occasion. 
I resolve to make no farther comments upon the facts than will 
be necessary to bring them together, and to show their related 
and associated significancy and application. 

I will here premise a few thoughts appropriate and neces- 
sary to be borne in memory, when the facts alluded to shall be 
brought under examination. 

The persons to whom Mr. Wayland's remarks, I shall no - 
tice, have any proper application, are Baptists and no other. 

This appears from the whole tenor of the correspondence, on 
both parts. Both writers are Baptists. The introductory let- 
ter by Mr. Fuller was addressed to the Editor of a Baptist 
paper. In that letter only two writers on the subject of slave- 
ry are named, Mr. Channing and Mr. Wayland. Mr. Chan- 
ning was dead, and Mr. Wayland was ready to commence 
his reply to that letter the very week the letter was published. 
" I have read with great interest your letter on Domestic 
Slavery in the C. R., the present week." In view of this fact, 
I appeal to both writers, whether there was not a previous 
agreement between Mr. F. and Mr. W., and the Editor, also, 
that Mr. F. and Mr. W., as Baptist men, would hold the cor- 
respondence as it was held? — and whether it was not occa- 
sioned by the discussions which had been, for several years, 
carried on among Baptists ? The letter of Mr. Fuller to the 
Editor of the C. R., begins with — " I comply at once, and in 
as few words as possible, with your request" &c, which har- 
monized with the agreement of which I speak. He addresses 
this Baptist Editor. So early as the tenth line, he introduces 
the " discussions in the Triennial Convention" at Philadelphia, 
and says that " the abolition doctrine, that slavery is itself a 
Gin," &c, " was reiterated in every variety of phrase," &c. 
He says, also, — " A correspondent in your last number holds 
up," &c. After making some remarks-on that article, he ev- 
idently addresses Baptists, when he says — " In affirming what 
you do." &,c, He closes his letter thus, — Abolitionists arc so 



FULLER AND WAYLAND, 129 

bad that neither the Editor, " nor any body at the North, who 
loves Christ and the gospel better than self, and strife, and fa- 
natical intolerance, will long be able to harmonize" with them: 
Mr. Wayland then takes up the thread where Mr. Fuller left 
it, and speaks of "our late Missionary meeting in Philadel- 
phia," &c. Mr. Fuller had formerly written, in reply to the 
Baptist Address to the South. From all these considerations, 
and from all the subsequent facts, down to this time, it is ob- 
vious that the correspondence was strictly Baptist. If, there- 
fore, there had been, among others, great improprieties in their 
treatment of the subject of slavery, the denunciatory remarks 
of both Mr. F. and Mr. W., had special, if not exclusive rela- 
tion to Baptists. If I were to admit that some others had 
used unnecessarily offensive language, I may deny that such 
language has ever been employed by Baptists, unless the con- 
trary can be proved. From Mr. Fuller, heavy censures might 
be expected upon those of us who had exposed the sinfulness of 
slavery ; but was it reasonable to expect this from Mr. Way- 
land, a Northern man, who knew or ought to have informed 
himself of the facts ? 

I may safely put it to Mr. W., and ask, in case he had read 
in Baptist papers — in our addresses to the South and to the 
North — or heard in our private conversation, or in our public 
lectures or addresses — any such very objectionable language, 
why he did not carefully record some of it, instead of dealing 
in undefined and vague, but yet sweeping and unmitigated 
condemnation of Baptist Abolitionists? 

Suppose that, in this Review, I were to have adopted the 
example he has set me, and poured out unmeasured censures 
upon both him and Mr. F., without once giving the reader a 
single statement either of them has made : would Mr. W. re- 
gard me as acting an honorable and christian part ? We 
have always desired and often urged that our opponents would 
quote what we have said. But no, — a" dignified siience" has 



30 review or 

generally been maintained, in regard to our actual positions 
and arguments, while general, undefined censure has been 
heaped upon ourselves, without even an attempt at extenua- 
tion, in the hearing of slaveholders themselves. 

Mr. Wayland has not once, in all of his letters under view, 
uttered a kind or apologetic sentiment in our behalf; but, on 
the contrary, has added his words of condemnation to those of 
his slaveholding and slavery-advocating correspondent, sing- 
ing bass to Mr. Fuller's alto. I am bold to say that, if we 
had been chargeable with having dealt in the most " coarse 
and lacerating invective," ever employed against the sin of 
slaveholding, — even then, he owed it to truth and humanity, 
to righteousness and the explicit declaration of the judgment 
of God, to tell Mr. Fuller and the world, that our impropriety 
w r as incomparably less sinful and dishonorable than the every- 
day action of the slaveholder, and, especially, such a slave- 
holder as his correspondent, who had told him, before Mr. W. 
penned his last letter, that he thought the law prohibiting un- 
der heavy penalties any persons from giving slaves literary in- 
struction, even to the reading of the sacred scriptures, was 
"necessary, wise and even kind." Mr. F. had'told him this, 
and yet not a word of rebuke did he utter in reply ; but told 
the man (who thus interposed himself between the poor in- 
sulted slave and his bleeding Redeemer, to prevent his attain- 
ing sufficient literature to " search the scriptures," and thus 
obey the express injunction of mercy,) how good he was. 

But Abolition Baptists, in their Newspapers, in their public 
addresses, in their direct communications to their " Southern 
brethren," as they were for years wont to call them, were not 
chargeable with any such offense as is alleged by Mr. F., and 
repeated by Mr. Wayland. It is a relief to believe, as we do, 
that the course pursued by the two parties, will be reviewed by 
historians who will write with impartial minds. I feel no so- 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 131 

licitudc here. But it is my purpose to disabuse the present 
generation of uncandid and unjust imputations to those, in the 
Baptist denomination in particular, who have been and still 
are sincerely and arduously laboring to remove from the 
Church of Jesus Christ, the deep disgrace and scarlet guilt of 
sustaining the system of American slavery. 

Mr. Wayland himself expressly declares that whoever should 
reduce him and his family to slavery, would do to him the 
greatest possible wrong. With what show of consistency did 
he, then, take to his warmest and most fraternal embrace the 
man who was living in the perpetual practise of so dealing 
with some sixty of his fellow beings? 

Not thus did the Savior regard and treat those who injured 
one of the least of his people. He assured the world that He 
accounted every such act of unkindness as done to himself. 
If therefore, to hold Him as a slave, " would be that greatest 
possible wrong," He would look upon the deed done to anoth- 
er with equal indignation. 

I now invite attention, not to any censorious remarks of my 
own, but to the very language employed by Mr. Wayland to- 
wards his Northern brethren, in order to understand the full 
meaning of which, the language of Mr. F., which he endorses, 
must first be brought into view. I will quote with the utmost 
accuracy. 

In his introductory letter, Mr. Fuller writes as follows : — 
" You" (Baptist Abolitionists) " say slavery is itself a sin ; it is 
therefore, always a sin ; a sin under any circumstances ; a 
crime which must involve the criminal in perdition unless he 
repents ; and should be abandoned at once, and without refer- 
ence to consequences. This is the abolition doctrine ; and at 
Philadelphia it was re-iterated in every variety of phrase ; and 
when even moderate men. and men seemingly very kind and 
calm in private, mounted the rostrum and felt the oratorical 
ii 2 



132 REVIEW OF 

afflatus, we invariably heard, not arguments, but rienuncia- 
tiona of this sort ; wc were sure to have eternal changes rung 
on the moral evil of slavery, the sin of slavery, the abomina- 
ble guilt of slavery, — to be told that the ineffable horrors of 
slavery did not admit of discussion, and to be seriously asked 
what article of the decalogue slavery does not violate 1 
If, however, slavery be a sin, surely it is the immediate duty 
of masters to abolish it, whatever be the result — this you urge, 
and this I grant. ... In affirming what you do, ought 
it not to give a pious mind pause, that you are brought into di- 
rect conflict with the Bible 1 The Old Testament did sanc- 
tion slavery. . . . and in the Gospels and Epistles, the 
Institution is, to say the least, tolerated. . . . How are 
you to escape the charge of impiety ] . . . A man who 
will deny this (that some sort of slavery was allowed in the 
Old Testament, and suffered by Jesus and his apostles,) will 
deny any thing. . . . The abolitionists however, are not 
among those with whom we can thus" (in the discussion of the 
subject,) " associate. They occupy a position hostile alike to 
us, and to the word of God, and to every principle of charity. 
. Examine the antislavery publications" (Baptist 
publications of course, or the charge is utterly impertinent) — 
" denude them of bold assertion and unmeasured invective 
against the accessories of slavery, and what is left ? . . . 
What, then, are we to think of those who revile us as pirates 
and thieves, and fulminate anathemas and excommunications 
against every christian at the South, no matter what his con- 
duct or character, simply because he will not submit to the ar- 
rogant behests of mortals who at best are, like himself, loaded 
with imperfections ; and because he esteems the Bible a saf- 
er directory than the dogmas of men, most of whom are every 
day proving themselves desiitute of the sound mind and charity 
of the gospel — of people who are essentially monomaniacs. 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 133 

. . with whom in fine, whatever your course may be as 
to us, neither you" (the said Editor) " nor any body at the 
North who loves Christ and the gospel better than eelf and 
strife, and fanatical intolerance, will long be able to harmon- 
ize." It was to this that Mr. Wayland replied, in his first let- 
ter, as follows : 

'• My dear Brother — I have read with great interest your 
letter. . . . I fully believe that you, equally with myself 
desire to arrive at the truth on this question" (of slavery). 
" I unite with you. ... in the opinion that the tone of 
the abolitionists at the North has been frequently, I fear I must 
say, generally, • fierce, bitter and abusive.' The abolition 
press" (Baptist, or the admission is impertinent,) " has, f be- 
lieve, from the beginning, too commonly indulged in exagger- 
ated statement, in violent denunciation, and in coarse and 
lacerating invective. At our late Missionary Convention in 
Philadelphia, I heard many things from men who claim to be 
the exclusive friends of the slave, which pained me more than 
I ean express." (C. P. G. was not there, and is not therefore 
personally concerned in the matter of this extreme pain of Mr. 
Wayland.) " It seemed to me that the spirit which many of 
them manifested was very different from the spirit of Christ." 
Now, observe with what a gush of brotherly affection, he takes 
the accuser, whose charges against Baptist Abolitionists he has 
just so fully and emphatically endorsed, to his bosom ; or, 
rather, with what servility he bows down at his haughty feet. 
" I also cheerfully bear testimony to the general courtesy, 
the Christian urbanity, and the calmness under provocation, 
which, in a remarkable degree characterized the conduct of the 
members from the South. ... I rejoice that a brother 
from the South has invited this discussion. . . . Should I 
utter a word that would tend needlessly to wound the feelings 
of my Southern brethren, there is not one of them that will be 



134 REVIEW OF 

as deeply pained as myself. If abolitionists have 

treated the subject offensively, this is no sufficient reason why 
any citizen of a Southern State should not be allowed, without 
offence, to declare his views," &c. 

In his second letter, Mr. W. is careful to exculpate himself, 
but utters not a word in defence of any other Northern man. 
He says — " I have never expressed my views of slavery in the 
form to which you have alluded." Slight and truthful allusion, 
truly ! 

Then, after giving his views of slavery, he asks — " Can we 
conceive of a greater moral evil?" Of having uttered a more 
severe or " lacerating invective" than is conveyed in this in- 
terrogative, has any abolitionist ever been accused 1 though it 
may not seem to be quite so " coarse," being put in the gentle 
form of inquiry, and has the softer words" moral evil" instead 
of " sin," which is the Bible word, the word "moral " not being 
once used in the Scriptures, and therefore, Baptist abolition- 
ists prefer to say " sin." 

All the way, in his third letter, Mr. W. concedes the guilt 
of abolitionists indiscriminately, and particularly remarks — " I 
can never approve of those appeals which treat all men at the 
South, as though they were, in respect to slavery, under the 
same condemnation ; and which apply to all indiscriminately, 
epithets which certainly belong to no more than a part. 
Hence I consider much of the action of churches and associa- 
tions" (Baptist) " at the North, to be false in principle and un- 
christian in practice." I deny the correctness of the premises 
from which these deductions are drawn. The whole South 
have never been treated in this indiscriminate manner by 
Baptist Abolitionists, neither do I believe that any abolitionist 
is justly chargeable with having treated the South in this way. 
Here, then I ask Mr. Way land, if he deems the comforting 
of slaveholders a duty so imperative a& to render exaggerations 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 135 

and misrepresentations more venial offences than if they were 
committed in an enthusiastic zeal for the overthrow of slavery? 

It is an easy work to ascribe to some Northern men great 
imprudences of which they arc not guilty, and " a spirit very 
different from the spirit of Christ," and then to go away with- 
out a suspicion that the spirit which thus deals in calumny, is 
at all in fault. 

Was it to be expected of Francis Wayland, that he would 
sometime fall in with the cry of "down with the Abolitionists," 
which twelve years ago issued forth from the dens of reckless, 
slavery-supporting and mob-fomenting wickedness at New 
York, which burnt Liberty Hall in Philadelphia, and shed the 
blood of a Northern minister at Alton, and disgraced even 
New England with riots and mobs from 1835, till it died away 
under the power of the indomitable spirit of abolition heroism ? 
At present, it survives only at the South, where Mr. Fuller 
thinks coerced-by-law illiteracy is a necessary, wise and even 
kind expedient for preserving the patriarchate from subversion, 
and where a Southern Baptist Editor (see Baptist Banner 
and Western Pioneer, June 11, 1846,) eopies with evidently 
pleasurable emotions the following gentlemanly and christ- 
ian wish — '• We wish all of them" (certain abolitionists who 
speak against the Mexican war) " says the Times, were under 
the orders of Gen. Taylor, on the Rio Grande, at the present 
time." (No coarse and lacerating invective here.) " If they 
would not fight for their country, Gen. Taylor would probably 
accomodate their wishes" (alluding to a willingness to die as 
martyrs, rather than join in supporting so unjust a war) — " by 
hanging them on the nearest tree." Quakers may with im- 
punity refuse to fight or in any way countenance war, but, if 
an abolitionist refuse, let him be " hung on the nearest tree," 
echoes a Southern Baptist Editor, in full fellowship with Mr. 
Fuller and all slaveholders of the South. On such men Mr. 



13G REVIEW OF 

Wayland bestows the most fulsome praise for their piety, 
while he pours equal censure on his abolition brethren of the 
North. Take the following as specimens. In his third letter 
he says: — 

" In the one class" (of slaveholders) " 1 perceive the linea- 
ments of the Christian character, in many cases strongly and 
beautifully expressed." To Mr. Fuller he says — " I believe 
that you have submitted yourself without reserve to the whole 
will of God, in so far as He shall reveal it to you. I well 
know the flattering prospects which you abandoned in order to 
become a preacher of the gospel of Christ." So he can ex- 
cuse this slaveholder whose prospects were so flattering (on 
account of his great powers of mind and distinguished attain- 
ments, I take it), from any guilt, on the score of his ignorance 
— he would do perfectly right, if only God should reveal to him 
his duty ; as though the Bible did not reveal it to a man of 
Mr. Fuller's mental endowments!! In his rejoinder, after 
Mr. F. had treated the abolition brethren as we have seen, 
and imputed to God the approval of slaveholding, Mr. Way- 
land addresses him in the following eulogistic strain — " My 
dear Br. — It is needless to assure you that I have read your 
letters in reply to mine on Domestic Slavery, with profound 
attention and unfeigned admiration. To the acuteness of one 
profession, and the learning of another, in both of which you 
have attained to the highest distinction, you have here added 
a fervor of eloquence and a richness of illustration peculiarly 
your own. Never before, I presume, has the defence of slave- 
ry on Christian principles, been so ably conducted. Never 
before, I think, has any thing been written, so admirably cal- 
culated to make a favorable impression on those who hold the 
opposite opinions. Nor is the singular ability displayed in 
this discussion by any means its highest recommendation. 
The warm spirit of philanthropy which pervades every part of 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 137 

your argument, must melt away every prejudice by which it 
could be resisted ; while the love to God and the reverence for 
His word (?) which are every where apparent, must, I am 
sure, give you a place in the affections of every true disciple 
of our common Lord." " We can both unite in the effort to 
render all slaveholders in this country, just such masters as 
you ! !" " All I ask is, that the views which you entertain, so 
far as I understand them, be carried out into practice." 

Here we have, then, that unprecedented triumph of Mr. 
Wayland over his opponent, of which there was at first so loud 
a boast among those " moderate men" who had always been 
11 as anti-slavery as any body." I ask the reader to re-peruse 
this section of this review with care. 

I propose now to examine the commonly received opinion 
that, in consequence of a certain curse pronounced by Noah, 
the posterity of Ham have ever since held the relation of in- 
feriors towards the posterity of both Japheth and Shem. This 
opinion is so generally adopted, that I need not be more par- 
ticular in stating it, in order to be understood. This subject 
becomes appropriate to this review, by reason of its intimate 
connection with the practice of slaveholding, the curse alluded 
to having long been and being still relied upon by many of the 
advocates of slavery, and constituting the basis, if they have 
any, of the very important admissions of Mr. Wayland in the 
following and other forms. 

" I grant, at once, that the Hebrews held slaves from the time 
of the conquest of Canaan, and that Abraham and the patri- 
archs held them many centuries before. I wonder that any 
one should have the hardihood to deny so plain a matter of 
record. I thould almost as soon deny the delivery of the ten 
commandments to Moses." " The people within these limits" 
(inclosing the Canaamtes) " remained under the primitive 
»:urte." 



138 REVIEW OF 

If the curse here spoken of doe3 not intend the curse by 
Noah upon Canaan, as it may refer to the judgment of God 
against the Canaanites on account of their extreme sinfulness, 
yet I find that the readers do generally understand it as refer- 
ring to Noah's curse, and therefore, draw from this passage all 
that amount of argument for slavery, as being of divine origin, 
which the opinion I have spoken of implies: moreover, not- 
withstanding all that is said by Mr. Wayland of the limitation 
of God's permission of slavery, under the laws of Moses, to the 
Jews as the slaveholders, and to the Canaanites as the slaves, 
the admission that Abraham and other patriarchs, many cen- 
turies before the lime of Moses, had held slaves, can find no 
foundation in the laws of Moses. This fact carries the<*reader 
back to some prior allowance of the practice ; and I know of 
nothing beside the curse uttered by Noah, to whieli the advo- 
cate of slavery attempts to appeal lor finding even a semblance 
of authority. I ask only that the reader will suspend his 
judgment, and patiently examine the Bible history of mankind 
from Noah downward some hundreds of years, and the circum- 
stances attending the alleged curse, and the subsequent histo- 
ry of the world. 

Commentators have, I believe, generally explained this 
curse agreeably with the opinion we are to consider ; but it 
may be sufficient, if I quote no more than a few sentences 
from Matthew Henry. Commenting on Gen. ix: 24—27, 
this writer says — " The spirit of prophecy comes upon him 
(Noah) and like dying Jacob, he tells his sons what should be- 
fall them. He pronounces a curse on Canaan, in whom Ham 
is himself cursed. Though divine curses operate slowly, yet, 
first or last, they will take effect. The Canaanites were un- 
der a curse of slavery." "He (God) entails blessings on 
Shem and Japhcth." In this view, Ham is excluded from 
blessing and made subject to cursing. So deeply impressed 



FULLER AND WAYLAN1). 139 

was the mind of Mr. Henry with this idea, that when he finds 
Ninirod a great warrior, and the first of kings and the founder 
of the mighty and long prosperous kingdom of Babylon, &c, 
he says — " It does not appear that he had any right to rule by 
birth ;" because, I take it, Mr. Henry traced this great man's 
origin to Ham, being a son of Cush, who was one of Ham's 
four sons. Afterwards, he admits, wonderful as it must have 
been to him, that even the "cursed" " Canaan had a better land 
than either Shem or Japheth," and that his " posterity were 
both numerous, and rich and very pleasantly situated." But 
he will have it, that he " was under a curse, a divine curse.'* 
Of Mizraim, the father of the Egyptians and the founder of 
that empire which, for so many ages, took the preeminence 
among the nations of the earth, Mr. Henry seems to have 
wholly lost the sight. Possibly, this fact may be accounted 
for in a similar way. Poor (?) Mizraim (Egypt of the Nile) 
must, of course, be made to rank with things of naught, how- 
ever enlightened and prosperous and powerful he became and 
continued for 20 centuries, becoming the schoolmaster people 
of the world, Greece sitting down at his feet to be instructed 
into the principles of science, and Rome, afterwards, receiv- 
ing the same benefit from him, — and ali this pity and contempt 
and forgetfulness of Egypt springs from this stereotyped proof 
of the Negro's inferiority, got up by slaveholders, — " the cur.'e 
or prophecy of Noah," which it is high time that Whites 
should understand. 

But, unless I have failed of reading the Bible intelligibly, 
the White world generally misunderstand the alleged proph- 
ecy of Noah, and, therefore, deduce from it, inferences most 
evidently contradicted by facts. To set this matter in a clear 
light, may require much and patient inquiry ; but the result 
may richly repay the labor which shall be devoted to the ques- 
tion so long poising in doubt, or settled in error. 



140 REVIEW OF 

The efforts to classify mankind according to apparent, or, 
rather, alleged characteristics of their physical constitution, 
have been very numerous, and have, by some, been thought to 
exhibit deep research and great learning. And, if that is deep 
research which carries the inquirer infinitely beyond or wide 
of the object sought, and if that is great learning which makes 
a plain subject confused and consequently mysterious, those 
efforts certainly entitle their authors to the praise bestowed 
on them. 

I grant that the history of man's origin and present diversi- 
fied appearance would be both mysterious and inexplicable, if 
God had not come to our help. 

In proof of this remark, I may state that, while some writers 
on Anthropology (the science of man), divide the human fam- 
ily into five, others reckon six — some sixteen, and others three 
classes or races; and others still confess themselves unable to 
determine the number of races. 

All the various hypotheses on which these classifications 
are founded, must, of course, be set down as visionary, ex- 
cept that which arises from the belief of the Mosaic history. 
This removes all doubt of the origin of the one race, and of 
the division of that one race at the time of the flood, first into 
three parts, and afterwards, by subdivision, into many more. 

I deem it as great a work of supererogation to give a phil- 
osophical account of the diversities existing at present among 
men, as they seem divided into different races, as to account 
for the diversities seen to exist in the same family of ten indi- 
viduals. 

It is enough to know that climate affects both form and 
complexion, and that modes of living and of employment con- 
tribute a share to the same end, and that education has much 
to do with form and expression, if nothing more. It is certain 
I think, that whatever phv. ; ical diversities exist, have taken 



FULLEB AND WAYLAND. 14 1 

place under the operation of lav:? established by the Creator 
at the beginning. These things arc, then, all as they should 
be ; and it is much more becoming in poor short-sighted mor- 
tals to say — " Even so, Father, for so it seemeth good in thy 
sight" — " Thou hast done all things well" — than to make 
the physical characteristics of any class of our fellow men an 
argument or occasion for treating them with disrespect, and 
for withholding from them the enjoyment of those rights as 
truly and sacredly bestowed on them as similar rights have 
been upon ourselves. There is, indeed, an ineffable mean- 
ness in trampling on the weak and in making the physical de- 
formities of another either our pastime or an occasion for 
treating him cruelly or unjustly. Even the common magnan- 
imity of our nature cries out against this ; but the revelations 
of the Infinite Mind expose its unqualified turpitude. The 
parent who would not have his little son live to become a 
fiend, ought to interpose at the first manifestation of this pro- 
pensity in him and snatch him from the threatened ruin while 
he may. Unwise indulgence, precisely at this point, has ed- 
ucated thousands for infamy. Though not by any means lim- 
ited to any one form of this evil or to its injurious bearing on 
any one description of mankind, I admit distinctly, that the 
special application of the remarks now made, is to that treat- 
ment visited by too many upon that branch of the human fam- 
ily properly called Africans. This word is no more a term of 
reproach than Europeans, Asiatics or Americans. Africa has 
had a proud share in the history of human improvement, and 
I design, at a proper time, to show that Africa, at this mo- 
ment, contains a numerous population enlightened and elevat- 
ed. And, if, in our investigations, it should turn out that the 
world is more deeply in debt to Africans for science and the 
arts, than to any other people, the discovery may contribute 
to suppress that vanity so long cherished by some other races, 



142 REVIEW OF 

and to humble that pride of self-superiority they have indulg- 
ed through a very gross mistake. 

A candid examination of the facts recorded in the 10th 
chapter of Genesis, may introduce us into the light essential- 
ly needed on this great question. I call it a great question, 
because, so long as existing error in relation to the history of 
the African race, causing them to be regarded as intellectual- 
ly inferior to other men, shall continue to brood upon the 
minds of the American people, it will be impossible to reach 
effectually the slaveholding conscience. This is one of those 
insurpassable obstacles of which I spoke. It is abundantly 
proved by the history of slavery and its abolition under the 
British government, that this obstacle must be removed or 
destroyed. The first triumph we gained in our antislavery 
warfare, said the benevolent Wilberforce, was the admission 
that the slave was a human being, which had been shameful- 
ly denied. Never did the cause of the slave, exert any gen- 
eral and effective influence on the minds of the British public, 
until, by the efforts — the humble, faithful, self-denying, and 
persevering labors of Christian Missionaries, the slaves of the 
British West Indies were intellectually and morally enlight- 
ened, and,therefore came up into view as an improvable race. 
Now it was that a natural respect for their humanity, for their 
intellectual improvability, took possession of the British mind, 
and a recognition of their moral brotherhood awakened the 
sympathies of the British heart. Then Christianity lifted up 
her voice in the souls of our English brethren, and spoke to 
be obeyed, and no longer to be listened to with leaden ears 
and an unfeeling heart. 

A like influence will be exerted on the public mind in 
America, by a collation of historical facts, which will estab- 
lish, beyond controversy, the rightfulness of the African's 
claim to intellectual and moral equality with the European. 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 143 

Many of you aro aware, I doubt not, that it has been estab- 
lished beyond all reasonable doubt, that the Egyptians and Ethi- 
opians of the ancient world, so renowned in the arts of peace 
and of war, were the ancestors of the modern Africans. This 
fact places that race on an equal footing with Europeans, in 
intellectual power and capability for improvement. I leave 
this point, important as it is, without going into an argument 
which might double the size of this book, and with only an car- 
nest request that the reader will carefully examine the history of 
the origin of the several races as given by Moses, particularly 
in the tenth chapter of Genesis, and with a quotation of the 
opinion of the learned traveler and historian Volney, which he 
states in the following manner. Commenting on the histori- 
cal statement of Herodotus that the Colchians and Egyptians 
were black with hair short and curling, he says — "That is, 
the ancient Egyptians were real negroes, of the same species 
with all the natives of Africa." 

THE MAIN QUESTION. 

It can not have escaped the notice of any observer, the last 
— the forlorn hope of all defenders of slavery, is that they 
shall be able to persuade the Christian world to believe in the 
silence of the New Testament on the question whether slav- 
ery is or is not sinful. What they finally seek is, not any 
expressed approval of their practice of holding men in slav- 
ery : for, though they commonly set out with a show of 
believing the existence of such approval, they soon abandon 
the untenable position and retreat behind the pretence of the 
absolute silence of Christ and his apostles. 

So Mr. Fuller seizes with the utmost anxiety on Mr. Way- 
land's admission that the gospel contains no express precept 
forbidding slavery. 

Although I have already taken a brief notice of this point 
m remarking on Mr. Fuller (see p. 122), its importance it too 



144 REVIEW OF 

great to allow of leaving it without further examination. 
Here, too, is the more appropriate place for its examination, 
since the admission comes from Mr. Wayland : for, though he 
has said many things of weight and employed much of sound 
and unanswerable argument against slavery, with the slave- 
holder all those things go for nothing, their force being neu- 
tralized by the one fatal admission, which, if it were now 
made by myself, would at once be trumpeted through the 
land as an abandonment of every thing I have ever said or 
written against slavery. The same would be the case of 
every other abolitionist in America. Once make the admis- 
sion, and it is impossible to guard against such a result. It is 
the fire which consumes the best building ever reared by an 
opponent of slavery, and it is for this reason that whoever has 
made it, is looked upon with entire indifference at the South, 
or is triumphantly reckoned among the sustainers of slavery. 
Therefore, Mr. Fuller said, that he had rather Mr. Wayland's 
letters should be circulated at the South than any thing which 
he could write. 

The admission is made by Mr. W. in these words — "All 
that can justly be said seems to be this — the New Testament 
contains no precept prohibitory of slavery. This must, I 
think, be granted ; but this is all." 

Yes — it is all the slaveholder asks : but, without any feeling 
of hazard, I aver that the New Testament does contain a 
" precept" as explicitly " prohibitory of slavery" as of any 
other sin. Mark the words — a " precept prohibitory of slav- 
ery." I will not descend to a definition of the word " pre- 
cept," for whoever does not know the meaning of this word, 
is not able to read an English book understandingly. 

So of the " precept prohibitory of slavery," which I single 
out from among scores of similar precepts contained in the 
New Testament — it is couched in the most simple and 



PULLER AND WAYLAND. 145 

explicit term?, level to any capacity. Let it be noted, how- 
ever, that the " precept" is not expressed by the few words — ■ 
" It shall not be so among you" — but by these defined by the 
associated declarations preceding and following them. 

" But JESUS called them (the disciples) unto him and said — Ye know 
that the princes (hoi archontes) of the Gentiles exercise dominion (kata- 
kurieuousi) over them, (their subjects; and they that are great (hoi megaloi) 
exercise authority (fcalexousiazonsi) upon them. BUT IT SHALL NOT 

BE SO AMONG YOU : but whosoever will be great (megas) among you, 
let him be your minister (diakonos, deacon). And whosoever will be chief 
(protos) among you, let him be your servant (doulos). Even as the Son 
of Man. came not to be ministered unto (diakonethenai) but to minister 
(diakonesai) and to give his life a ransom for many." 

Ambiguity and mysteriousness belong to the teachers of 
error : but the great Author of Christianity exhibits truth with 
so much explicitness that the wayfaring man, though not 
remarkable for the learning of the schools, nor gifted with 
more than ordinary powers of intellect, needs not misunder- 
stand His instructions. Even when He chose to teach in 
parables, His purpose was illustration, and His meaning was 
commonly apprehended by the common people ; while the 
Doctors of the Law, through their habits of speaking and 
thinking metaphysically and mysteriously, wrought up those 
plain illustrative parables into mysteries, and pretended that 
they saw no light in them. They did evil, and, as is well 
known of every one that doeth evil, they hated the light 
which would, if admitted into their own minds, reveal that 
evil in the form of guilt to themselves, and, if permitted to 
fall upon their practices, would expose the turpitude of those 
practices, and the guilt of their enactors to an observing com- 
munity, against whose rights and interests those evd deeds 
were done. If, while they devoured widows' houses, they 
could, by long prayers, or an ostentation of piety, becloud their 
own consciences, and make the people stand in awe of them, 
and think that it was right tor such godly men to devour the 

I 



146 REVIEW 01 

property of the poor, they would secure three great objects oi 
high interest to them. 

1. They would have peace within. 

2. The community would praise and not blame them. 

3. They would accumulate wealth without the toil of earn- 
ing or producing it. 

These three things being secured, they would be prepared 
for the enjoyments congenial with their corrupt moral taste. 
In this way I think I am able to perceive the meaning of the 
Savior's words — " but unto them in parables, that seeing they 
might or would not see, and hearing they might not under- 
stand" : — not that his teachings were not clear, but were con- 
trary to their tastes and supposed interests. 

The precept I have selected is so far from being a parable 
that it is the directest possible prohibition of a moral evil to 
which the human heart is so prone as to need to be fenced 
about — walled in — from its indulgence by the sternest pro- 
hibitory enactments of Divine legislation, even after men have 
been regenerated, us were the personal disciples to whom the 
text was addressed. 

Since this was true of them, it may not be supposed that 
converted men now have risen above this necessity ; and, 
certainly, a mere profession of being a disciple of Christ can 
not exempt the man from such necessity. " But it shall not 
be so among you" — said the Christian Lawgiver, then ; " Ic 
shall not be so among you," utters the same unchanging 
authority, now. That this language is not a mere prophecy 
or statement of what would not be among professed Chris- 
tians, appears from the words associated with these. "But 
whosoever will be great among you let him be your minister." 
Here is, both in Greek and English, the imperative mode, and 
by association it spreads its imperative force over the whole 
passage, — " let him be" — " it shall not be" — both phrases be- 



FULLE1 AND WAY1,A.\D. 147 

tng equally imperative in their intention, " It shall not be so 
among you" — ye shall not so do — ye are forbidden to do so, or 
as the gentiles do. 

We have not yet inquired what act or practice is prohibited 
— it being hitherto our purpose to show that the language is 
direct and explicit, and imperative or prohibitory, designed to 
forbid some wrong. We shall readily perceive what is the 
wrong prohibited by reading the context. Matt. xx. 21 — 28. 
The same instruction and prohibition are found in Luke 
xxii. 24 — 30, though somewhat differently expressed. 

What, then, is the moral wrong which Christ here so lucid- 
ly exposes, and so absolutely forbids? Can a world of readers 
fail of understanding the passnge alike? or can they see any 
other than the same thing prohibited ? 

Among the gentiles or heathen, Slavery was practised 
every where. The measure of power was with them, being 
without God and his revealed will, the measure of right. 
Rome was then the dominant power — the will of that govern- 
ment was the law over the surrounding nations. The Jews 
were subject to that power. Christ himself recognized Caesar's 
authority and paid him tribute, or directed his disciples to do 
so. Rome was a slaveholding government ; and so far did 
the claims set up by that government over the slaves extend, 
that it was decreed, or virtually and practically settled under 
that government, that slaves were not men, but beasts, and 
were so to be regarded. These slaves, let it be observed and 
remembered, were white people, generally or chiefly. The 
tyranny which was exercised on the throne, diffused itself down 
through all the subordinate offices and grades of office, and 
spread wide through the aristocratic community. Private 
individuals possessed themselves of slaves according to their 
wealth and choice, and wielded over them an absolute despo- 
tism ; and those who thus exercised authority upon them,i. e. 



148 REVIEW OF 

all these tyrants from Caesar down, as Christ informs us, were 
called benefactors, or well-doers, or righteous men. They 
called themselves so, and were so called and considered by 
each other. The oppressed, who were groaning beneath the 
intolerable burthen, did not so regard them, neither would 
they call them so, except coerced to utter with their lips a libel 
on their own souls. But, among the heathen of Christ's day 
on the earth, such tyrants agreed in accounting each other 
benefactors or righteous people, and set up the claim that there 
were no others so good as they. They regarded themselves 
as the peculiar favorites of the gods. 

Christ came down and dwelt among them, and taught them 
his religion, and uttered the laws of his kingdom, a kingdom, 
too, which was to fill the whole world. And now, though he 
became a citizen and subject of the Roman government, and 
directed his followers to give unto Caesar the things which were 
Caesar's, did he approve of the doings of that government, or 
did he remain silent in regard to its despotic practices '? In our 
text he means something, and I know not that language can 
be framed to describe any thing more explicitly than the lan- 
guage of the text and context describes that thing; or that a 
prohibition can be more clearly or more emphatically legislat- 
ed and declared than this: "But it shall not be so among 
you." All the oppressions practised under the same govern- 
ment were now to be condemned. It is clear that a moral 
principle which runs through a class of actions and forbids 
them all, visits upon the various degrees of evil-doing a meas- 
ure of censure and rebuke, proportionate to the magnitude of 
the various evils done ; so that the perpetrator of the greater 
wrong is worthy of a corresponding punishment. The man, 
therefore, who unjustly robs another of his entire estate, is more 
guilty than another who robs the rich of a single sheaf of 
wheat. 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 14!) 

The Bible every where sets forth the robbery of the poor as 
a crime of superlative heinousness ; for, though it be a small 
amount, it is his living. The robbery of the poor has in it the 
meanness and cruelty of snatching the indispensable morsel 
from the lips of the man dying with hunger. All the faculties 
of intellect and affection cry out against such a wrong as the 
most flagrant and shameful. You may impose burthens on 
the strong and healthy with pardonable guilt ; but to load 
down the weak, fainting, pallid victim of a consumption, with 
any amount of weight, would be justly called unpardonable. 
Allow not, then, yourselves to think that Christ took a sympa- 
thetic part with the comparatively strong — though he shall, 
indeed, have his portion with the strong, or be as strong as 
the strongest, for he will exert that strength on behalf of his 
suffering poor ; and woe be to the strong who shall resist 
him, — their strength shall be as tow — as the spider's web — as 
the giving up of the ghost. 

We are, therefore, to understand the Christian Lawgiver, 
when He stands in the midst of his disciples, and declares — 
'• But it shall not be so among you," as meaning that they shall 
not do the oppressions which are done by the heathen, — 
that they shall wrong no man, and, especially and superlative- 
ly, that they shall not oppress the weak — the widows, the 
fatherless — them who have no helper. The man already 
crippled by the impositions of tyranny — reduced to a defenseless 
condition by the laws of a tyranical government, is the last 
man you may crush still lower ; nay, he is the man whom 
you must soonest relieve, and defend, and support, or you 
disregard the laws of Christ, and treat with sacrilege the 
sanctity of the inclosures Divine wisdom and goodness have, 
by the gospel, erected around him, — the slave is that man. 

The gentiles oppress the weak ; " but it shall not be so 
among you." " Support the weak ;" succor the defenseless ; 

t9 



150 REVIEW OF 

fly to the relief of him who has no helper. The half-dead 
victim of thieves, who have robhed him of his own wages ; of 
his children,wife,, parents ; and of himself : who have robbed him 
of the Bible with all its needed light, and promises and hopes ; 
that is the oppressed one who, above all others, is to receive 
your sympathies and your assistance ; else, says " the Author 
of" a " Moral Science," which pours infinite contempt on all 
counteracting systems : " else, ye can not be my disciples." 

The gentiles oppress ; they rob the poor and the needy, 
" but it shall not be so among you." One of our modern 
Northern wise men ; one who calls himself " the Author of 
the Moral Science," has admitted to the slaveholder that the 
gospel does not contain any direct prohibitory precept against 
Slavery. When you hear the Lord Jesus declare that the 
despots of the gentiles exercise lordship over the people, and 
exercise authority upon them : " But it shall not be so among 
you ;" do you discover any want of either explicitness or di- 
rectness in this " prohibitory precept V Shall we abandon a 
precept like this, and search about among the ignes fatui of 
moral sophists, whose highest rule of right is expediency, to 
find, if we may chance to do so, to light upon something which 
may, possibly, serve as a pretext for abolition, and that too, 
for the purpose of relieving the oppressor from the vexations 
and dangers to which his slaves subject him, rather than to do 
any justice to the slaves 2 That may, perhaps, be thought to 
be a subtle and acute philosophy which can so pervert the 
passage under view from its direct preceptive character, and 
so cover its broad sunlight with a bushel, that it can no more 
be properly called a direct precept prohibiting Slavery ; but 
such philosophy the plainness of scripture language, and the 
decisions of unsophisticated reason and common sense, will 
agree in regarding as that " philosophy falsely so called," of 
which Paul warned the Colossian brethren to beware, lest 



FULLER AND WAYLAND. 151 

some one should beguile them by it, lest it should spoil them ; 
" a philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, 
after the rudiments of the world," (just such a world as those 
gentiles made it) " and not after Christ." (Col. xi. 8.) 

If Jesus Christ had said to his disciples — the gentiles are 
slaveholders, but ye shall not be — the "precept" would have 
been no more explicit and decisive, or " prohibitory" than it is 
now. It would, indeed, have limited the prohibition to 
Slavery, whereas it now takes in all the forms in which 
oppression may exist ; and, since Slavery, or the forcible 
depriving a man of the enjoyment of every one of his rights, 
does, in fact, include every possible wrong of oppression, under 
one form, the necessity of another form, in order to make the 
wrong complete, is superseded. Slavery compared with any 
minor, I may say, any other form of oppression, is like decapi- 
tation compared with a curable flesh wound more or less 
severe. When, therefore, Jehovah prohibits the doing any 
measure of wrong to our fellow man, the obligation and force 
of that prohibition, instead of being annulled by the extreme 
of wrong-doing, are perfected or come themselves to be 
extreme. Such is Gospel "ultraism." 

If we were, at this point, to speak of penalties, we should 
be obliged to show that the penalty must be apportioned to 
the offence ; and, therefore, they who impose on others the 
largest oppression, deserve the heaviest penalty. This prin- 
ciple is acknowledged in its application to every other species 
of wrong; and nothing but a peculiar blindness superinduced 
by the influence of selfishness, pride and evil passions, prevents 
its application to the unsurpassed crime of Slavery. Many 
have come to make this application already, and their num- 
ber is daily increasing, as divine truth takes effect on their 
minds and triumphs over the evil which makes the heart inim- 
ical to right. 



152 REVIEW OF 

It may serve to corroborate these views, to consider the pos- 
itive requirement or injunction which the Savior places in 
immediate connection with the prohibition which has been 
examined. 

To this I shall not need to devote more than a few words, 
while my readers will give many thoughts. But whosoever 
will be great among you, let him be your minister, or deacon, 
as the word is in the Greek. And whosoever will be chief 
among you, let him be your servant : the Greek word here is 
doulus, which signifies an auxiliary or helper. 

If any could desire to find authority given to the disciples 
to enslave each other, let such observe that, in order to derive 
such authority from this passage, the rule must be that, in 
case any one disciple should be lifted up and aspire to supe- 
riority over his brethren, they are to unite their power against 
him, and to drag him down into the condition of a slave ; in 
doing which, however, they would become guilty of the very 
crime, which they would undertake to punish in the aspirant. 
Such an absurdity is not ascribable to the teachings of Christ. 

His intention is, therefore, in the words, " let him be your 
servant," that, instead of aspiring to authority over others 
to their humiliation, it is and ever shall be the Christian's 
duty (^and all men are required to be Christians and obey the 
gospel) ; it is the duty of every Christian ; of every man ; to 
repress and subdue his own pride and to cultivate humility. 
To enforce this duty, and, at the same time, to illustrate the 
real nature of humility, and to show that, so far from being 
identical with degradation and meanness, it is true honor; 
such even as befits the Son of God himself; he adds, " Even 
as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to 
minister, and" (as the perfection of humility ;) " to give his 
life a ransom for many." 
Oh, how arc pride, and all oppression, rebuked in man, as 



FULLER AND WAYLAXD. 15'^ 

lie approaches the meek and lowly Redeemer ! as wo go with 
the wise men from the East to visit the humhle birth-place 
in Bethlehem ; as we join company with his followers and 
see him going about doing good, shunning the palaces of the 
great, collecting the poor from the highways and the hedges 
to preach to them his gospel ; taking up his abode with the 
family of Mary and Martha and Lazarus; retiring to some 
•secluded spot for prayer on behalf of his proud persecutors ; 
entering the garden of Gethsemane, borne down with sorrow 
for a wicked, thoughtless, perishing world ; then bearing the 
^ross on which, under the gaze of a deriding multitude, and 
amidst their loud mockeries, He was to expiate sin ! This 
is humility ; we need no logical definition of the word : we 
see its full meaning in the person of our Lord. Would you 
dare be a slaveholder now ? Do the precepts, illustrated in 
the example of Christ, furnish a defence for Slavery 1 So far 
from it, all those numerous precepts authoritatively uttered by 
him against every species of injustice and unkindness and 
indifference to the woes of others, are summed up in these few 
words, as they stand explained by him and gloriously illus- 
trated by his example ; " It shall not be so among you." 
With this "prohibitory precept," applying with more emphasis 
to Slavery than any other form of oppression, because all 
others are inferior to this one, I commit this Review to the 
public, and pray that the God of the poor and oppressed will 
bless it, with all its imperfections, to the accomplishing of 
some good. 

i3 



REFERENCES TO DOULOS. 

The following list contains all the Texts in the New Tes- 
tament, where the word Doulos and other words derived from 
the same root are used. 

AouXo£. 

Matt.— viii. 9 ; x. 24, 25; xiii. 27, 28 ; xviii. 23, 26, 27, 23, 32 ; xx. 27 ; 

xxi. 34, 35, 36 ; xxii. 6, 8, 10 ; xxiv. 45, 46, 48, 50 ; xxv. 14, 1«J, 21, 

26, 30 ; xxvi. 51. 
Mark. — x. 44 ; xii. 2, 4 ; xiii. 34 ; xiv. 47. 
Luke.— ii. 29; vii. 2, 3,8, 10; xii. 37, 38, 45,47; xiv. 17,21, 22, 23; 

xv. 22 ; xvii. 7, 9, 10 ; xix. 13, 15, 17, 22 ; xx. 10, 11 ; xxii. 50. 
John.— iv. 51 ; viii. 34, 35 ; xiii. 16 ; xv. 15, 20 ; xviii. 10, 18, 26. 
Acts.— ii. 18 ; iv. 29 ; xvi. 17. Rom.— i. 1 ; vi. 16, 17, 19, 20. 
I. Cor.— vii. 21, 22, 23; xii. 13. II. Cor.— iv. 5. 
Gal.— i. 10 ; iii. 28 ; iv. 1, 7. Eph.— vi. 5, 6, 8. Phil.— i. 1 ; ii. 7. 
Col.— iii. 11, 22; iv. 1, 12. I. Tim.— vi. I.— U. Tim. ii. 24. 
Titus — i. 1 ; ii. 9. — Philemon, 16. — James, i. 1. 
I. Pet.— ii. 16.— II. Pet., i. 1 ; ii. 19.— Jude, 1. 
Rev.— i. 1 ; ii. 20 ; vi. 15, vii. 3 ; x. 7 ; xi. 18 ; xiii. 16 ; xv. 3 ; six. 2, 

5, 18 ; xxii. 3, 6. 

Ao-jXy]. 

Luke— i. 38, 48.— Acts, ii. 1, 8. 

AouXsuw. 

Matt.— vi. 24.— Luke, xv. 29; xvi. 13.— John, viii. 33.— Acts, vii. 7 ; 

xx. 19. 
Rom.— vi. 6; vii. 6,25; ix. 12; xii. 11 ; xiv. 18; xvi. 18. 
Gal.— iv. 8, 9, 25 ; v. 13.— Eph., vi. 7.— Phil., ii. 22. 
Col.— iii. 24.— I. Thess., i. 9— I. Tim., vi. 2.— Titus, iii. 3. 

AojXow. 

Acts— vii. 6.— Rom., vi. 18, 22—1 Cor., vii. 15; ix. 19.— Gal., iv. 3. 

Titus— ii. 3. II. Peter. — ii. 19. 

In the Old Testament we give a few references. 

Lev. — xxv. 44. — I.Sam, xxv. 41, (translated handmaid.) xxix. 3 ; xxx. 
13. — II Sam, xviii. 29. — I. Kings., xi 26; xii. 7.— Neii. ii. 10. — 
Ps. cv. 17.— Prov., xi. 29 ; xii. 9.— Is., xlix. 7— Jer., ii. 14. (The 
word Slave in this verse is not in the original, as any will observe, it 
being printed in italic.) Dan., vj.20. — Zecii., iii. 8— Mal., i. 6. 



THE HIRELING MINISTRY 



CHRIST'S 



A DISCOURSE 



TOUCHING THE PROPAGATING THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST 

JESUS ; 



Humbly Presented to 

SUCH PI0I7S ANI HONORABLE HANDS "WHOM THE PRESENT 
DEBATE THEREOF CONCERNS. 



BY ROGER WILLIAMS, 

OK PROVIDENCE, IN NEW ENGLAND 



LONDON : 

PRINTED IN THE SECOND MONTH 

1652. 



INTRODUCTION. 



The reprint of any discourse preached by such a man as Roger Wil- 
liams, two hundred years ago, may reasonably awaken not only curiosity, 
but a solemn interest. Few men of any age have left on the world's mind 
a more permanent impression ; and that impression is decidedly favorable 
to religion and gospel virtue. He is not now regsrded as either a gloomy 
ascetic, or a fanatical zealot; neither do men think of him as either a 
selfish politician, fawning at the feet of royalty, to secure emolument, or a 
headstrong mutineer against government, or a wily traitor to his country. 
And yet what religionist ever promulgated sentiments more novel to the 
times or more antagonistical to the prevailing Church policy 1 or what 
politician ever more firmly planted his foot in opposition to governmental 
assumption of power? or advocated principles of a. true Republicanism, 
with a truer zeal, though a subject of Royalty ? 

His triumph will ever stand as a great fact for ths light and encourage- 
ment of reformers, who respect truth for its intrinsic beauty and value, and 
who fear God more than earthly dishonor ; for, though he was calumnia- 
ted by many of that age, his works have followed aim since, diffusing a 
light which occasions the admiration of both the pious and the profane. 
God is glorified in him. 

In publishing this discourse, it is concluded, while the language is left 
unaltered, to employ the modern orthography after tie first page or two. 

Editor. 



DISCOURSE. 



In this discourse are briefly touched these particulars : 

1. The Nationall and Parishional Constitution of Churches, 
is found to be the Grand Idoll of the Nation. 

2. The inforcing of the Nation to Such a Constitution is 
the greatest Soul oppression in this Nation. 

3. The Hireling Ministrie attending upon Such Assemblies 
or others is none of the Ministrie of Christ Jesus. 

4. The Univirsities of the Nation, as Subordinate and 
Subservient to sueh Ministries and Churches, are none of the 
Institutions of Christ Jesus. 

5. It is absolute duty of the Civil State to Set free the 
Souls of all men from that so long oppressing yoake of such 
Ministries and Churches. Yet 

6. Ought the nation and every person in it, be permitted 
to see with its own eyes, and to make free choice of what 
worship and Ministrie, and maintenance they please, whether 
parochial or otherwise 7 

7. The Apostolical Commission and Ministrie is long since 
interrupted and discontinued. Yet 

8. Ever since the beast Antichrist rose, the Lord hath 
stirred up the Ministrie of Prophesie, who must continne their 
witness and prophesie until their witness be finished and 
Slaughters probably neer approaching accomplished. 

9. The provocation of the holy eyes, is great in all Courts 
throughout the nation by millions of legal oaths which if not 
redressed, may yet be a fire kindled from his jealousie ; who 
will not hold him guiltless which taketh his name in vain. 



158 DISCOURSE. 

10. The free permitting of the consciences and meetings 
of conscionable and faithful people throughout the Nation, 
and the free permission of the Nation to frequent such assem- 
blies, will be one of the principal Means and Expedients (as 
the present State of Christianity stands) for the propagating 
of the Gospel of the Son of God. 



To All such Honourable and Pious hands, whom the pres- 
ent Debate touching the propagation of Christ's Gospel con- 
cerns : 

And to 

All such gentle Bereans, who with ingenious civility desire 
to search whether what is presented concerning Christ Jesus, 
be so or not. 

All humble respective Salutations. 

It being a present high Debate (Honorable and Beloved) how 
the Gospel of Christ Jesus might more be propagated in this 
Nation: 2. And being desired by eminent friends, to cast in 
my mite towards it. 3. And having been engaged in several 
points of this nature, in my former and later endeavours, 
against that Bloody Tenent of persecution for cause of Con- 
science : 4. And also having been forced to observe Goings 
of God, and the Spirits of men, both in Old and New Eng- 
land, as touching the Church, the Ministry and Ordinances 
of Jesus Christ, I did humbly apprehend my call from Amer- 
ica, not to hide my Candle under a Bed of Ease and Pleasure 
or a Bushel of Gain and Profit ; but to set it on a Candle- 
stick of this public profession for the benefit of others, and 
the Praise of the Father of all Lights and Godliness. 

2. For the Substance, and most of this, I suddenly drew it 
up, and delivered two copies unto two eminent friends of 
Jesus Christ and this Nation : But being importuned for 
more Copies than I was possibly able to transcribe and being 
(therefore) advised by some Honourable friends, to use the 
help of the Press ; I am thus beyond my first Intentions and 
Desires, held forth in public. 

3. If ought I have expressed seem harsh, dissatisfactory, or 
offensive, I am humbly bold (I hope in the power of the 
Most High) to profess my readiness to discuss, debate, dis- 
pute ; either by Word or Writing, with whom or whom- 



DISCOURSE. 159 

soever the present Debate concerns, with all Christian Meek- 
ness, and due Submission. 

4. It is true I absolutely deny it (against all coiners) to be 
the burthen of the Civill State to take Cognizance of any 
Spiritual cause ; and I do positively assert it, to be the pro- 
per alone work of the holy Son and Spirit of Cod in the 
hands of his Saints and Prophets to manage heavenly and Spirit- 
ual causes (and that only with Spiritual weapons against Spirit- 
ual oppositions,) and therefore that the higher Powers have 
been constantly deceived by the Mercenary and Hireling 
Ministers; who being themselves deceived, deceive; and 
take about (as the Wind, and Time, and advantage blows) 
from Popery to Protestantism, from Protestantism to 
Popery, from Popery to Protestantism again! from Prelacy 
to Presbyterie, from Presbyterie, many to Independency ; and 
will again to Presbyterie and Prelacy, if not to Popery (in 
some cases,) rather than lose (as they say) the Liberty of 
Preaching: But what that loss is of somewhat else (Gain, 
Honour &c.,) let themselves, and all men judge impartially 
in the fear of God. Yet 

5. 1 humbly acknowledge (as to Personal worth) I deal 
with men, for many Excellent gifts, elvated above the com- 
mon rank of men ; yea and for personal Holiness (many of 
them) worthy of all Christian love and Honor, in which 
respects when I look down upon myself, I am really persua- 
ded to acknowledge my unworthiness to hold a Candle or a 
Book unto them. And yet, if I give flattering titles unto men, 
my Maker (saith Elihu) would quickly take nie away ; and 
why therefore (since 1 have not been altogether a Stranger to 
the Learning of the Egyptians and have trod the hopefullest 
paths to Worldly preferment, which for Christ's sake I have 
forsaken) since I know what it is to Study, to preach, to be 
an Elder, to be applauded ; and yet also what it is to tug at 
the Oar, to dig with the Spade and Plow, and to labor and 
travel day and night amongst English, amongst Barbarians ! 
Why should I not be humbly bold to give my witness faith- 
fully, to give my counsel effectually, and to pursuade with 
some truly pious and conscientious spirits, rather to return to 
Law, to Physic, to Soldiery, to Educating of Children, to 
Digging (and yet not cease from Prophesying) rather than to 
live under the Slavery, ye, and the censure (from Christ Jesus 
and his Saints and others also) of a Mercenary and Hireling 
Ministry ? 



1G0 DISCOURSE. 

G. To which end my humble and hearty cry is to the 
Father of Lights, to plead with all his Children of Light effec- 
tually ; so that they look up, wonder, and say, am I a child of 
Light l Is the Father of Lights my Father, and the Saints 
my fellow Brethren and Scholars in Christ Jesus, the Children 
of Light also '? What make I then in dark places, like those 
that have been dead of old 1 What make I amongst the 
Graves and Tombs ; the Livings, Benefices, Promotions, 
Stipends, &c. 1 I have told a quick passage between the 
truly noble Earl of Essex (in Queen Elizabeth her days) and 
a truly able and zealous Non-conformist: I have, the Earl, 
been studying a great while these two points ; first the Per- 
sons of the Bishops ; and I have labored with the Queen to 
prefer none but good men to her Bishoprics : The next thing 
is their places, which if I find them to be as bad as their Per- 
sons be ; then, then, &c. But they soon cropt off' that noble 
head, &c. 

That same blessed Spirit breathes (T doubt not) in many 
heavenly Spirits of our times in Parliament, in Council, in the 
Army ; and their holy desire hath been to prefer the choice 
and flower of able and Godly men to places, in City, in 
Country, in University. It may yet so please the Father of 
Spirits to stir up their noble minds to meditate as well Hire- 
ling places as they have too well Known their persons. It 
may also be, that his most holy and pure Eye sees they have 
been highly honored, and enough already: more work is left 
for growing Sprigs, for whom some erowns are kept to which 
their father's heads were not so fitted. 

7. And yet although I humbly give the Civil State its 
Right, to wit, to take down places or persons which them- 
selves or Fathers^iave erected ; yet am I also far from taking 
off a yoke from one to clap it on the neck of otheis. Let the 
Towns, the Parishes, and Divisions of people in the three 
nations be undisturbed by any civil Sword from their conscien- 
ces and worships ; though traditional, though Parochial ; and 
let their maintenance be by Tenths and Fifths or how freely 
they please. 

1. Only let it be their soul's choice and no enforcing Sword, 
but what is Spiritual in their Spiritual causes. 

2. I plead for impartiality and equal freedom, peace and 
safety to the consciences and assemblies, unto which the 
people may as freely go, and this according to each con- 



DISCOURSE. 161 

science what conscience this conscience or (not transgressing 
against civilities) whether of Jew or Gentile. 

Object. But would you have, say some, Jews, Turks, and 
Papists live in Protestant countries ? I answer I judge it here 
only seasonable to say that I humbly conceive, that this objec- 
tion, and all that can be said (as to piety or policy) is satis- 
fied in my late unwashing of M. Cotton's washing of the 
Bloody Tenet: in that late Endeavor I humbly hope, I have 
made it evident that no opinion in the world is comparably so 
bloody or so blasphemous as that of punishing, and not permit- 
ting, in a civil way of Cohabitation, the consciences and wor- 
ships, both of Jews and Gentiles. 

Ireland hath been an Akeldama, a field of Blood ; probably 
it is, that the guilt of all that Blood, Protestant and Papist 
will tall upon this Bloody Tenet, of which both Papist and 
Protestant are guilty, to wit, ot not permitting the Heretics, 
the Blasphemers, &c, as the Sword falls either into the hand 
of a Popish or a Protestant Victor. 

What a voice from heaven is there, in the forepast ages of 
our Fathers now rotten under us ! From Henry the second 
his time, unto Henry the eighth, while their consciences had 
freedom under Popish Kings of England, how little blood was 
spilt English or Irish, compared with the showers and rivers 
both of one and the other spilt in the few years of our Protest- 
ant Princes, while the consciences of the Catholics have been 
restrained by the civil Sword and penalties'? 

8. In the discourse it will appear, how greatly some mis- 
take, which say I declaim against all Ministries, all Churches, 
all Ordinances ; for I professedly avow and maintain, that 
since the Apostacy, and the interrupting of the first ministry 
and order, God has graciously and immediately stirred up and 
sent forth the ministry of his Prophets who during all the 
reign of Antichrists, have prophesied in sackcloth, and the 
saints and people of God have more or less gathered to 
and asssembled with them ; they have prayed and fasted 
together, and exhorted and comforted each other, and so do, 
notwithstanding that some are not persuaded and satisfied (as 
others conceive themselves to be) as touching the doctrines of 
Baptisms, and laying on of hands. 

Lastly, whatever be the Issue of all their public agitations, 
my humble and hearty cry to the Father of mercies is for every 
soul in the three Nations, that desire to fear him ; whether of 



lii"Z DISCOURSE. 

higher of lower rank, that we may more and more cry, and 
endeavor for assurance of personal reconciliation in the blood 
of the lamb, more and more for participation of the divine 
Nature in the purity and holiness of the spirit of God : more 
and more lament (with Jeremy) the division and desolations 
of God's people and the holy Ordinances and Worship of God 
in Christ Jesus ; more and more press after love and all pos- 
sible communion with God's people in the midst of many dif- 
ferences ; more and more abound in mercy and compassion 
to the souls and consciences ; and woful conditions of others, 
Jews or Gentiles, and more and more prepared with the 
golden sheaves of the preparation of the Gospel of peace, 
ready for all the good pleasure of God in Christ Jesus ; for 
prosperity, for adversity, for abundance, for want, for liberty, 
for imprisonment, for honor, for dishonor, for life, for death, as 
knowing that they that suffer with Jesus, shall not only Reign 
with him, but here also in the midst of outward sorrows, be filled 
with Joy unspeakable, and full of Glory. 

Being desired by some Loving Friends to cast in my mite 
as to that Heavenly proposition of Propagating the Gospel of 
Christ Jesus, I am humbly bold to propose these conclusions, 
and their consectaries following. 

The two Great Prophets of God's Revealed Counsel, Moses 
(the Servant) and Christ Jesus (the Lord) as they have both 
declared unto us a Creation, a Creator, the Shipwreck of 
mankind, the Restoration, the Restorer, so have they both 
revealed unto us a Visible Company of the Holy Worship- 
pers of this one most glorious Creator and Redeemer, and 
that as for his own most glorious praise, so in opposition to 
all false Gods, who also are attended with their visible wor- 
ships and worshippers. 

In order to God's visible worship, the Lord Jesus hath 
broken down the wall of division between the Jews and the 
rest of the Nations of the World and sent forth his Minis- 
ters (Wisdom's Maids) unto all Nations, to bring in (by the 
Gospel's invitation) Proselytes, Converts, Disciples, such as 
should eternally be saved, to begin that eternal and heavenly 
Communion in heaven, here in an holy and visible worship 
on earth. 

This Going forth of the true Ministers of Christ Jesus is rep- 
resented under the figure of the white troops in the opening of 
the first seal where the Lord Jesus in his first messengers 



DISCOURSE. 163 

rode forth upon the white horse or horses cf the word of truth 
and meekness (Psal. 75,) conquering and to conquer in the 
eouls of men. 

Thirdly. From the 6 — 8 Revelation to the 19 we hear no 
more of those white horsemen, that is (as I conceive) the 
Apostles or messengers of Jesus Christ ; (the whole insinuat- 
ing a total routing of the Church and Ministry of Christ 
Jesus, put to flight, and retired into the wilderness of desola- 
tion.) 

Fourthly. During the dreadful apostacy and desolation, 
the Lord hath not left the world without witness, but hath 
graciously and wonderfully stirred up his holy Prophets and 
Witnesses such as were before the Waldenses more obscure, 
but more eminently the Waldenses, the Wickliffists, the 
Hussites, the Lutherans, the Calvinists (so called) who have 
as witnesses prophesied and mourned in sackcloth 1260 days 
or years (prophetically) I say mourned for the routing, deso- 
lating of the Christian Church or army : and panted and labored 
after the most glorious Rally thereof, and Restoration. 

This Testimony is probably near finished and the saints by 
their late and yet following wars (I say probably) must en- 
rage the anti-christian world, so far as to provoke the nations, 
to their great and general slaughter, called the slaughter of 
the witnesses. Rev. 11. After which and their shame three 
years and a half, forthwith their most glorious and joyful 
Rising. 

These witnesses, these prophets, are probably those one 
hundred and forty four thousand virgins, mystical Israelites, 
twelve times twelve, which stand with the Lamb on Mount 
Zion, against the Romish Beast and are the same number 
sealed twelve times twelve. Rev. 7. 

But there is in the same seventh Chapter, a numberless num- 
ber, which no man can number, to wit, the Converts of the 
Nations of the world, which must yet come flowing unto 
Christ Jesus, after this his famous second Conquest over the 
Devil, the dragon in the Roman Popes, having before triumphed 
over him in the Roman Emperors. 

The World divided (say our ablest Cosmographers) into 
thirty parts, as yet, but five of thirty have heard of the sweet 
name of Jesus a Savior : His Messengers must yet go forth 
into the other twenty-five, after the downfall of the Papacy, 
when also at the fullness of the Gentiles, or Nations coming 

K 



164 DISCOURSE. 

in, shall be the joyful Raising us from the Dead of the (Accur- 
sed and yet Beloved Nation of the) Jews. Rom. 11. Rev, 
18 and 19. 

The Civil State of the Nations being merely and essen- 
tially civil, cannot (Christianly) be called Christian States, 
after the pattern of that holy and typical Land of Canaan, 
which I have proved at large in the Bloody Tenet, to be a 
IVon-such and an unparalleled Figure of the Spiritual State 
of the Church of Christ Jesus, dispersed, yet gathered to him 
in all Nations. 

The civil Sword, (therefore) cannot (rightfully) act either 
in Restraining the Souls of the people from Worship, &c, or 
in constraining them to Worship. Considering that there is 
not a Tittle in the New Testament of Christ Jesus, that com- 
mits the Forming or Reforming of his Spouse and Church, to 
the civil and W T orldly Powers. 

Fifthly. No man ever did nor ever shall truly go forth 
to convert the Nations, nor to Prophesy in the present state 
of Witnesses against Antichrist, but by the gracious Inspira- 
tion and Instigation of the Holy Spirit of God, according to 
1 Cor. 12., where the Holy Spirit discoursing of those three 
(Gifts, Administrations, Operations,) tells us that no man 
can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit ; and 
Rev. 11. I will give power to my two Witnesses, &c. 

I prejudice not an External Test and call, which was at 
first and shall be again in force at the Resurrection of the 
Churches, (as Mr. Cotton himself calls it, in Rev. 20.) But 
in the present state of things, I cannot but be humbly bold to 
say, that I know no other True Tender, but the Holy Spirit, 
and when he sends, his Messengers will go, his Prophets will 
prophesy, though all the World should forbid them. 

From the former conclusions, we may first see upon what a 
false Scent or Word, our Fathers and ourselves have run, as to 
the true Ministry appointed by Christ Jesus : How many 
thousand Pretenders have been and are (Protestants and 
Papists) to that Grand Commission, Matth. 28 — Go into all 
Nations, Teach and Baptize, &c. 

In the poor small span of my Life, I desired to have been a 
diligent and constant observer, and have myself many ways 
engaged, in City, in Country, in Court, in Schools, in Uni- 
versities, in Churches, in Old and New England, and yet can- 
sot in the holy presence of God, bring in the Result of a sat- 



DISCOURSE. 1G5 

isfying discovery, that either the Begetting Ministry of the 
Apostles or Messengers to the Nations, or the Feeding and 
Nourishing Ministry of Pastors and Teachers, according to 
the first Institution of the Lord Jesus, are yet restored and 
extant. 

It may then he said, what is that Ministry that has been 
extant since Luther and Calvin's time (especially what is that 
Ministry that has been instrumental in the hand of the Lord 
to the conversion of thousands ?) I answer, the Ministry of 
Prophets or Witnesses, standing with Christ Jesus, against his 
great co-rival, and competitor, Antichrist. Rev. 10 — 11. 

The whole Books of Martyrs (or Witnesses) is nothing 
else but a large Commentary or History, of the Ministry of 
Witnesses, during all the Reign of the Beast, to this day. 

Look upon Berengarius with the Saints, enlightened by 
him ; Look upon Waldos, with his Waldenses in France, 
Wickliife in England, John Huss, and Jerome of Prague in 
Bohemia, Luther in Germany, Calvin in Geneva, those Parts, 
and other places, and Countries. Now examine these Wit- 
nesses in two Particulars. 

1st. Negatively, wherein they Witnessed against the False, 
against the Usurpations and Abominations of Antichrist, and 
therein they were the Infallible Witnesses, and Prophets of 
Christ Jesus, Preaching, and oft times Suffering to the Death", 
for his Name sake. But 

2d. View them in their Positive Practice and Worships, 
as they have assumed and pretended to such and such Minis- 
tries, and Titles, and Churches, and Ministrations ; and 
there is not one of Them — no not Calvin himself (the great- 
est pretender to Church Order.) But the Father of Lights, in 
our times of Light hath been graciously pleased to discover 
their great mistakes and wandering from the first Patterns 
and Institutions of Christ Jesus. 

I know the multitudes of Interpretations given upon Rev. 
11. as touching the two Witnesses, and that many, if not 
most, incline to believe, at least to hope and desire, that their 
slaughter may be past and over: unto which in all humble 
submission to the holy counsels of God for Zion's sake, I most 
heartily say as Jeremy once said in another something like 
case, Amen. But all the Interpretations extant, that ever I 
have yet heard, or read of, they seem to me to lock up the 
Sun in a chamber, they are too narrow and particular, and 



166 DISCOURSE. 

like some Almanacs, calculated for one Meridian and Cli- 
mate. For Antichristianism is an Universal plague sore, 
spread over all the Empire that was Roman. The Roman 
Popes, as Vicars of Christ Jesus, pretend to a Roman Cath- 
olicism, or Universality also. The Lord Jesus, his cause, 
therefore, and the cause of his Saints, is of a more general 
and universal concernment, such hath the Witness of his 
Servants been in all ages, and Countries of Europe. Now 
notwithstanding many particular slaughters (as the Book of 
Martyrs and other catalogues of Christ's Witnesses testify) 
yet I see it not possible, that that Scripture can be satisfied 
but that after the Universal finishing of the Witnesses, there 
must follow an Universal' persecution and slaughter unto 
which an Universal provocation and Exasperation by the 
Saints must probably precede and give Occasion. 

Wherein hath the former, and latter Ministry been defec- 
tive 1 

I answer, in all these four. Their Gifts, their Calling, their 
Work, their Wages. 

First. In their Gifts : for notwithstanding they pretend to 
the Apostles' Commission, and to succeed them, Mat. 28, yet 
they have never pretended to the Gifts and Qualifications of 
such a Ministry, nor have they ever been able to clear up 
Two Foundations of the Christian Religion (Heb. 6) The 
Doctrine of Baptism, and the laying on of hands. 

Secondly. Notwithstanding that some plead their Succes- 
sion from the Apostles or Messengers, yet are they forced to 
run into the Tents of Antichrist, and to plead Succession 
from Rome, and neither such, nor others which plead their 
Calling from the People, can prove to my conscience from the 
Testimony of Christ Jesus, that either Christ's Succession did 
run in an Antichristian line, or that two or three godly per- 
sons might first make themselves a Church, and then make 
their Ministers, without a preceding Ministry from Christ 
Jesus unto them, and to guide them in such their Adminis- 
trations. 

Thirdly. The work of that Commission (Math. 28,) was 
exercised and administered to the Nations, as Nations, and the 
World. But all our professed Ministrations, former and lat- 
ter, have been. carried on (in a grand, and common mystery) 
for the converting of a converted people, for if we grant all 
Protestant Nations to be Christians, and so act with them in 



DISCOURSE. 167 

prayer as Chistians, and the Children of God ; how can we 
pretend to convert the converted, and to preach unto them to 
convert them ? One or other must be denied, to wit, that 
they are converted, or if unconverted, that we may offer up 
Christian and Spiritual Sacrifices with them. No Herald, no 
Embassador sent to a city or army of Rebels did ever (con- 
stantly least of all) perform such actions of State with those 
Rebels, which represents or renders them in a capacity of honest, 
and faithful subjects. Oh the patience and forbearance and 
long suffering of the Most High, whose eyes yet are as a flame 
of Fire. 

Fourthly. In their Wages, whether by Tithes or other- 
wise, they have always run in the way of an hire, and rend- 
ered such Workmen absolute hirelings, between whom and 
the true Shepherd (John 10.) the Lord Jesus, puts so express 
and sharp a difference, so that in all humble submission, I am 
bold to maintain that it is one of the grand Designs of the 
Most High, to break down the Hireling Ministry, that Trade, 
Faculty, Calling and Living by Preaching, and that if all the 
Princes, States, Parliaments, and Armies, in the world, should 
join their Heads and Hearts, and Arms and Shoulders to sup- 
port it, yet being a part of Babel and Confusion, it shall 
sink as a mill stone from the Angel's hand into the deeps for- 
ever. 

But is not the Laborer worthy of his Reward ? I answer 
there is no Reward (by infinite degrees) comparable to an 
hundred fold (though with persecution) in this Life, and in 
the World to come Eternal life, to all that deny themselves 
in this Life and do teach and suffer for the name of the Son 
God. 

Most strictly and particularly I answer First, He that makes 
a Trade of Preaching, that makes the care of Souls, and the 
charge of mens' eternal welfare, a Trade a Maintenance and 
Living, and explictly makes a covenant or bargain (and 
therefore no longer penny, no longer a patermaster, no lon- 
ger pay, no longer pray, no longer preach, no longer fast, &c.,) 
I am humbly confident to maintain, that the Son of God, nev- 
er sent such an one, to be a Laborer in his Vineyard : Such 
motions, spring not from the living and voluntary Spring of 
the Holy Spirit of God, but from the Artificial and worldly 
respects of Money, Maintenance, &c. 

Wherein consists the making of the Hireling's, explicit, and 
implicit Bargain I k2 



168 DISCOURSE. 

I answer, 'Tis explicit, express, and plain, when there is a 
mutual declaring, and agreeing, for so much, or so much, in 
one kind or another, as the Levite agreed with Micha in the 
Judges. 

Of this sort of explicit and plain Bargains by way of Tithes, 
Stipends, &c. How is our own and other Nations full and 
how many thousands are there of the instances of moving and 
removing from leaner to fatter Benefices, like the former Levite 
from the poor Chaplainships of Micha's family to the more 
rich and eminent Devotion of a Tribe of Dan, just like Ser- 
vants hired by the year (more or less) stay not when they 
hear of proffers of more ease, and better Wages. 

Secondly. An implicit or implied bargain or compact is 
when there passeth no express agreement for so much or so 
much, but having been brought up (as we say) to that only 
Trade, they must make their living of it, and therefore being 
something convinced of the Grosser way, they are content, 
as Watermen, Porters and the like with some kind of intima- 
tions by word of mouth, or in course, which shall amount to such 
a promise as this express : I know your Fare, your Due, I will 
content you &c. Trust to my Courtesy. The trial of this 
is plain, for without such an Implication or implied promise, 
the Hireling will not, indeed he cannot (having no other way 
to live on) move his Lip or Tongue, no more than a Water- 
man or Porter, his Hand or Foot. 

Again. As to the Laborer worthy of his Reward, I 
answer, we find no other pattern in the Testament of Christ 
Jesus, but that both the Converting (or Apostolical Ministry) 
and the Feeding (or Pastoral) Ministry, did freely serve or 
minister and yet were freely supported by the Saints and 
Churches, and that not in stinted Wages, Tithes, Stipends, 
Salaries, &.c. but with larger or lesser supplies, as the hand of 
the Lord was more or less extended in his weekly blessings 
on them. 

Thirdly. When either through poverty or neglect, support 
aud maintenance failed, yet still they eyed (Seaman and 
Soldiers say) the Good of the Voyage, and the Battle (the 
common cause of the Lord Jesus) and their own hands day 
and night, supplied their own and others' Necessities. And 
this was and will be the only way of the Laborer of the Son 
of God. 

The Priests and Levites under the Law, had settled and 
constant maintenance. 



DISCOURSE. 1G9 

I answer, Blessed he the father of Lights who hath shown 
his people of late times, the great difference between the 
stated and settled National Church, the Ministry and main- 
tenance thereof, and the (ordinary) afflicted, moving, flying 
state of the Church, and Churches of Christ Jesus, all ihe 
world over. 

Although it he granted, that the Hireling Ministry hoth 
explicit and implicit, is none of Christ's, yet this is wonderful 
what should be the reason why so much good hath been 
wrought thereby, as the conversion of thousands, &.C.? 

I answer, All the wisdom, mercy, goodness, and piety, 
that is in us, is but a drop to the ocean of that which is in 
the Father of mercies, who with infinite pity and patience, 
passeth by the ignorances and weaknesses of his children. 
Hence Luther, and other Monks, Cranmer, and other Bishops, 
Calvin, and other Presbyterians, God hath graciously covered 
their Failings, and accepted his own Grace of good desires, 
good Affections, and Endeavors, though many ways defiled 
by sin. 

Thus was his infinite Goodness pleased to overlook the sin 
of Poligamy, or many Wives, in which so many of the Fath- 
ers or Patriarchs of Israel were brought foith. 

Thus was he pleased to pass by the sins of the High Places, 
where Solomon himself offered Sacrifice. And yet as to this 
great point of good being done, we may with truth assert two 
things. 

First, where. God hath been pleased to bring in one soul to 
Himself by the Hireling Ministry, many more have been 
brought home by the voluntary and more single preachings of 
some, whether public or private, by the endeavors of private. 
Christians, by the reading of the Holy Scriptures, by godly 
example, by afflictions, &c. Hence woful experience hath 
made it evident, that many excellent men (in their persons, 
and the graces of God's spirit) have labored a score of years, 
and more in an Hireling way, without the birth of one child 
to God ; while others singly out of love to Christ Jesus, have 
despised bargains and hire, and been more abundantly blessed 
with merciful success and fruitfulness. Hence sure it is that 
there have been, are many excellent prophets and "Witnesses 
of Christ. Jesus, who never entered (as they say) into the 
Ministry, to wit, Lawyers, Physicians, Soldiers, Tradesmen, 
and others of higher, and lower rank, who by God's Holy 



170 DISCOURSE. 

Spirit (breathing on their meditations on the Holy Scriptures, 
and other private helps) have attained, and much improved an 
excellent Spirit of knowledge, and utterance in the Holy 
Things of Jesus Christ, which spirit they ought to cherish, and 
further to improve to the praise of Christ. 

Amongst so many Instances (dead and living) to the ever- 
lasting praise of Christ Jesus, and of his holy Spirit, breathing 
and blessing where he listeth, I cannot but with honorable 
Testimony remember that Eminent Christian Witness, and 
Prophet of Christ, even that despised, and yet beloved Samuel 
Howe, who being by calling a Cobler, and without human 
learning (which yet in its sphere and place he honored) who 
yet I say, by searching the Holy Scriptures grew so excellent 
a Textman, or Scripture learned man, that few of those high 
Rabbis, that scorn to mend or make a shoe, could aptly, and 
readily from the Holy Scriptures, outgo him : and however 
(through the oppressions upon some men's consciences even in 
Life and Death, and after Death in respect of burying, as yet 
unthought and unremedied) I say, however he was forced to 
seek a grave or bed in the very Highway, yet was his life and 
Death, and burial (being attended with many kindreds of 
God's people) honorable, and how much his rising again 
glorious. 

But secondly, True and Right prophesying and Preaching, 
at first was, and shall be (because after God's own Way and 
Ordinance) beyond all compare with present Times ; glori- 
riously, and wonderfully Successful. Thus Acts "Z and 5, &c. 
poor Sinners came mourning after a Savior by thousands. 
The Church, and people of God since the Apostacy, is an 
Army routed, and can hardly preserve and secure itself, much 
less subdue, and conquer others, like a Vessel becalmed, at 
Sea, which though it make some way by Rowing and Tow- 
ing, yet not comparable to what it doth when the mighty 
gales of God's Holy breath (as most he useth to do) in the 
ways of his own most holy appointments. 

Thirdly, we may see a great mistake as touching that great 
point of Conversion : There is a great breathing in the souls 
of God's people, after the Conversion of the English, Irish, 
Jews, Indians, and blessed be God for those breathings, yet 
doubtless the first great work is the bringing of the Saints out 
of Babel, or confused Worships, and the downfall of Papacy, 
after the witnesses are slaughtered. Hence it is probably con- 



DISCOURSE. 171 

ceived by some upon Rev. 15 — that until the Vials be" poured 
forth upon Antichrist, the smoke so filleth the Temple that 
no man, that is (few of the Jews or Gentiles) shall by conver- 
sion enter in. 

Some will say, have there not been great and mighty con- 
versions of whole Nations, England, Scotland, French, Dutch, 
&c, from Popery to good Protestantism '? 

I answer. If the Holy Scriptures, the first pattern, and 
doleful experience may be judge, as an eminent person 
lately spake ( upon occasion of a Debate touching the 
conversion of the Indians,) we have Indians at home, Indians 
in Cornwall, Indians in Wales, Indians in Ireland, yea as to 
the point of true Conversion, Regeneration by God's Spirit, 
who can deny but that the body of this and of all other Prot- 
estant Nations (as well as Popish) are unconverted, and (as 
formerly) ready to be converted and turned forward and back- 
ward as the Weather-Cock, according as the powerful wind 
of a prevailing Sword and Authority, shall blow from the va- 
rious points and quarters of it. 

By the merciful assistance of the Most High, I have desired 
to labor in Europe, in America, with English, with Barbari- 
ans, yea, and also I have longed after some trading with the 
Jews themselves, (for whose hard measure I fear the Na- 
tions, and England, have yet a score to pay.) But yet (as 
before) I cannot see but that the first and present great De- 
sign of the Lord Jesus, is to destroy the Papacy. In order to 
which, two great Works are to be effected. 

First. His calling of his people, more and more out of the 
Babel of confused Worships, Ministries, &,c. and the finishing 
of their Testimony against the Beast. 

Secondly. The great sufferings, and slaughter ofthe Saints, 
upon occasion of which Christ Jesus in his holy wrath and 
jealously, will burn and tear the bloody Whore of Rome, 
after which effected, the numberless number, Rev. 7 — the ful- 
ness of the Gentiles or Nations (Rom. 9) together with the 
Jews, shall flow to Jesus Christ. 

Thirdly. We may hence see our great mistake, both of 
ourselves and our Forefathers, as to the pretended Seed-plots 
and Seminaries lor the Ministry, the Universities of Europe 
tind the UniversitieS of this Nation ; for although I heartily 
acknowledge that among all the outward Gifts 'of God, human 
learning, and the knowledge of languages, and good arts are 
k3 



1 72 DISCOURSE. 

excellent, and excel other outward gifts, as far as light excels 
darkness ; and therefore, that Schools of human learning 
ought to be maintained, in a due way, and cherished ; yet not- 
withstanding, In Ordine ad ministerium, as to the Ministry of 
Christ Jesus, (any one of those Ministries, Eph. 4 8, Cor. 12) 
upon a due survey of their Institutions, and continual practi- 
ces compared with the last will and Testament of Christ 
Jesus, they will be found to be none of Christ's, and that in 
many respects. 

First. As to the name Scholar, although as to human learn- 
ing, many ways lawful, yet as it is appropriated to such as prac- 
tice the Ministry, have been at the Universities (as they say) 
it is a sacrilegious, and thievish title, robbing all believers and 
Saints, who are frequently in the Testament of Christ styled 
Disciples or Scholars of Christ, Jesus and only they as believ- 
ers, and this Title is so much theirs that both man and woman 
believing, were called Scholars. Acts 9 — There was a certain 
Disciple or Scholar, called Dorcas. Secondly, as to their 
Monkish and idle course of life partly so genteel and stately, 
partly so vain and superstitious, that to wet a finger in any 
pains or labor, it is a disgraceful and an unworthy Act : But 
the Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and 
Prophets, who were Laborers, Fishermen, Tent makers ; 
Jesus Christ (although the Prince of Life) yet a poor carpen- 
ter, the chief corner stone. And I cannot but conceive, that, 
although it should not please the most holy and jealous God 
to stir up this renowned State, and their renowned Cromwell 
(the 2nd) to deal with our refined monasteries, as that blessed 
Cromwell the first did with the more gross and palpable 
superstitions in Henry the Eighth his days ; yet in his time 
the Lord Jesus, whose is all power in Heaven and Earth, will 
spue out these Seminaries of Hirelings and mystical Mer- 
chants, out of his wrath, as he hath done with their Fathers, 
the superstitious and bloody Bishops before them. 

Thirdly. As to their Popish, and vaunting Tithes, so strange 
from the New Testament, and language of Christ Jesus, or 
any word or title, that came forth of his blessed mouth (Bach- 
elors of Divinity) (or Godliness) Doctor of Divinity, so clearly 
and expressly opposite to the command of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, call no man Father, Doctor, &£, that is by way of 
Etninency, in Spiritual, and heavenly regards, Rabbi, Rabbi, 
Doctor, Doctor, &-c. 1 omit (because possibly for shame left 



DISCOURSE. 173 

off in these days) their chiklsh ceremonies (used even by the 
most holy and conscientious) in their superstitious commen- 
cings and creatines &c. their holy Gowns, (black and red) 
holy cassocks, holy caps, holy scarfs, holy Rings, yea and holy 
boots also, &c. all is far from the purity, and simplicity of the 
Son of God, as far as the honest attire of some sober and 
chaste Matron, from the wanton, and flaunting vanities of 
some painted Harlot. 

Fourthly. As to their (pretended) Spiritual and holy exer- 
cises proper only to the Churches and Assemblies of the Saints 
(the only Schools of the Prophets appointed by Christ Jesus.) 
How have they been by Courts imposed upon every nautral 
and unspiritual man who (in truth) perceives not the things 
that be of God : How have they been prostituted to every 
profane and unclean lip ; unto whom saith God (Ps. 50) What 
hast thou to do to preach my word, and to take my name into 
thy mouth. 

Fifthly. As to their being prepared, and fitted by these 
means as in a way of Apprenticeship, to set up the Trade and 
way of Preaching, the science, or faculty of Spiritual mer-" 
chandise (Rev. 18, in a deep Mystery) of all sorts of spices 
and precious things, the precious sweet truths and promises 
of holy Scripture ; yea (which we may with holy trembling 
add) a Trade of selling God himself, Christ Jesus, the Holy 
Spirit, Heaven, Hell, and (too, too often) their own Souls and 
the Souls of thousands. 

But have there not come excellent men from thence, famous 
for Learning, Holiness, Labors, Success in the Souls of thou- 
sands, &c. ? 

I say, there have been excellent (some say Popes and 
Cardinals, and we are sure) Lord-Dishops and Monks, in 
their personal Holiness, Gifts, Learning, Labors, Success, and 
therein famous Prophets and Witnesses of Christ Jesus ; yea, 
they have sealed the holy truths of God, which they have 
learned from the holy Scriptures, and which they have declared 
to others. I say they have sealed them with their heart 
blood, but that's no justification of their evil standing, Institu- 
tions, Administrations, &c. which (as by degrees it hath 
pleased the Father of Lights to discover unto them) they 
have come out of such Bondage, with shame and sorrow, and 
labored after the purity and simplicity of the Son of God. 

But extraordinary gifts be ceased, how shall now the peo- 
k4 



174 DISCOURSE. 

pie of the Nation, be supplied with Ministers, but from such 
Seminaries of Learning, to know, and Eloquence to utter the 
heavenly Mysteries ; or would you have the people be of no 
Religion at all, mere Atheists, without God, without his Word, 
without a Ministry, &.C.? I answer, 'Tis true, those glorious 
first ministerial Gifts are ceased ; and that's or should be the 
lamentation of all Saints, to wit, the desolation, and the Wid- 
owhood of Zion: Yet I humbly conceive, that without those 
gifts, it is no ground of imitation, and of going forth to Teach, 
and Baptize the Nations; for the Apostles themselves did not 
attempt that mighty enterprise, but waited at Jerusalem until 
the Holy Spirit descended on them, and enabled them for that 
mighty work ; least of all is* that a ground of counterfeiting and 
suborning a lifeless picture of that first Ministry (like Jero- 
boam's Institution) when every one that hath Friends may be 
preferred to Fellowships in Colleges, to the superstitious 
Degrees and Titles of Divinity, (as they call it) and by these 
stairs ascend up the Gospel preferments, of rich and honorable 
.Benefices. Yet 

Secondly ; far be it from me to derogate from that honor- 
able civility of training up of Youth in Languages, and other 
human learning, whether in the City of London, or other 
Towns, and Cities, &c. All that I bear witness against, is 
the counterfeiting and sacrilegious arrogating of the titles of 
God's Saints and Churches (as before) which are the only 
schools of the Prophets : As also, against sacrilegious and 
superstitious Degrees (as they call them) in the profession of 
Divinity, as if they only knew Divinity, Godliness, Holiness, 
and by such skill in godliness, and by such Degree, might suc- 
ceed the ancient Scribes, and Pharisees, in the uppermost 
seats in Synagogues on Feasts, in Reverend titles and salu- 
tations, as the only Masters and Teachers of Religion and 
Godliness: and all this in way of the Hireling, dividing (Dan. 
11) the whole Land for gain, so that there hath not been room 
(without some special and extraordinary privilege and license") 
for the poorest cottager to live in England, out of the Bishop's 
Diocese, and the Priest's Parish, and payments ; therefore 

Thirdly ; In all humble reverence and due submission to the 
Higher Powers, I affirm there was never merely Civil State in 
the World (for that of the Jews, was mixed, and ceremonial) 
that ever did, or ever shall make good work of it, with a civil 
sword in spiritual matters, and therefore have but builded and 
plucked down, planted and plucked up, Churches, Ministries, 



DISCOURSE. 175 

Disciplines, &c, I acknowledge with thankfulness that many 
heavenly spirits, in K. Edwards, Q Elizabeth's days,and since 
that, have been forming and reforming the states and nations, 
Religion, Worship, Ministry, ccc. Doubtless intentions were 
holy (as David's), labors great, and God's mercy and pity and 
patience infinite: yet experience long and ever hath told us 
that there was never a Nation yet born in a day to God. 
That the bodies of all Nations are a part of the world, and 
although the Holy Spirit of God in every Nation where the 
Word comes, washeth white some Blackamores, and changeth 
some Leopard's spots, yet the bodies, and bulks of Nations, 
can not by all the acts and Statutes under heaven, put off the 
Blackamore skin, the Leopard spots, &c. why then should 
the wisdom of so many ages still each after other, be preached 
(by the prevailing Hirelings of each time, again and again,) 
into the self-same delusion, of washing the Blackamores. 
There is not a Town nor a Parish, nor a person in England, 
but judge themselves christian, and to that end challenge the 
right, and use of a Minister, in Sacris, some, (as in all Reli- 
gions in the World it is) to serve the Deity they worship, ex 
officio, as Sacerdotes, or holy persons, for and with them in 
prayers and holy Rites, 

This mine eyes have often seen among the wild, yet wise, 
Americans, who yet (alas) as all the Nations of Europe, and 
the world, are utterly incapable of Forms and Ministers (or 
Officers) of Christian Worship, while yet in their natural, and 
worldly capacities nor born again, made spiritual and heav- 
enly, by the holy Spirit of God. Yet, 

Fourthly, I desire uprightly to be far from clivers weights and 
measures in the things of God (especially) : and therefore I 
desire not that liberty to myself, which I would not freely and 
impartially weigh out to all tht consciences of the world be- 
side : and therefore I do humbly conceive, that it is the will 
of the Most High and the express and absolute Duty of the 
civil powers to proclaim an absolute freedom in all the three 
Nations, yea, in all the world (were their powers so large) that 
each Town and Division of people, yea, and person, may freely 
enjoy what worships, what Ministry, what maintenance to 
afford them, their soul desireth. To this end I am humbly bold 
to offer, that it is not the will of the Father of Spirits, that all 
the conciences and Spirits of the Nation should violently [Vi 
et arrnis] be forced into one way of worship, or that any Town 



176 DISCOURSE. 

or Parish [so called] in England, Scotland, or Ireland, be, 
disturbed in their worship [what worship soever it be] by the 
civil sword ; if the people freely choose that way of worship, 
and ministry, and maintenance, they walk in — yea if they 
will- freely pay them the Tenths, or Fifths, I shall not envy 
their Minister's maintenance, or disturb either Minister or peo- 
ples' conscience by any other sword, but with that spiritual 
sword of two edges, the sword of God's Spirit, the holy word 
of God. 

Grant that bodies of the Nations to be but natural, 
but civil, and therefore, cannot without the changings of 
God's Spirit, be possibly fit as spiritual flocks of sheep, for spir- 
itual Pastors, or shepherds, to feed and build them up with the 
spiritual Ordinance of Christ Jesus ; yet, need they not a con- 
verting or begetting Ministry of Christ Jesus, to preach Re- 
pentance to them, to spiritualize and change them '? ahd if so, 
where shall ten thousand Ministers be had to go to [about] that 
number of Parishes in England, without the constant supplies 
of the seed-plots and Seminaries, the Universities of the Na- 
tions? 

I answer. First, there are great disputes among God's 
people whether Apostles or Messengers sent out to teach and 
baptize, that is, to convert the Nations, be yet an Ordinance of 
Christ Jesus continued, or being extraordinary ceased 1 There 
is a great dispute whether the Ministry of the twelve [Matth. 
10] or of the 70 [Luke 10] be continued, since they both had 
an immediate call from Christ. 

And Secondly, such excellent gifts, abilities and furniture from 
Christ, which now we find none are furnished with, as healing 
of the sick, raising of the dead, casting out Devils, &c. Fur- 
ther, whether all these gifts and administrations, Eph. 4 and 
1 Cor 12, be to be expected ? 

For myself, I am sure of two things. 

First, it is but little of the World yet that hath heard of the 
lost estate of mankind, and of a Savior, Christ Jesus ; and as 
yet, the fulness of the Gentiles is not yet come, and probably 
shall not, until the downfall of the Papacy. Yet Sec- 
ondly, the Ministry, or service of Prophets, and Witnesses, 
Mourning and Prophesying in Sackcloth, God hath immedi- 
ately stirred up and continued all along the reign of the 
Beast, and Antichrist of Rome. 

This Witness is probably near finished, and the bloody 
storm of the slaughter of the Winesses, is yet to be expected 



DISCOURSE. 177 

and prepared for: But this, and the time, and many passages 
of Rev. 1 1- — is controversial and something like that of Christ's 
personal presence, the state of the New Jerusalem, the new 
Heaven and Earth, &c. 

However, this is clear, that all that are entrusted with spir- 
itual or temporal Talents, must lay them out for their Lord 
and Master, his advantage. 

That all (of what rank soever) that have knowledge and 
utterence of heavenly Mysteries, and therein are the Lord's 
Prophets and Witnesses against Antichrist, must prophesy 
against false Christs, false Faith, false Love, false Joy, false 
Worship, and Ministrations, false Hope, and false Heaven, 
which poor souls in a golden dream, expect, and look for. 

This Prophecy ought to be (chiefly) exercised among the 
Saints in the companies, meetings, assemblies of the fellow 
mourners and witnesses against the falsehoods of Antichrist: 
If any come in [as in 1 Cor 14] yea, if they come to catch, 
God will graciously more or less vouchsafe to catch them, if 
he intends to save them. 

But for the going out to the Nations, Cities, Towns, as to the 
Nations, Cities and Towns of the World unconverted, until 
the downfall of the Papacy, Rev. 18. — and so the mounting of 
the Lord Jesus, and his white Troopers again, Rev. 19, &c. 
For the going out of any to preach upon hire, for the going out 
to convert sinners, and yet to hold Communion with them as 
Saints in prayer : For the going out without such a powerful 
call from Christ as the twelve, and the seventy had ; or without 
such suitable gifts as the first Ministry was furnished with, 
and this especially without a due knowledge of the period of 
the Prophecies to be fulfilled, I have no Faith to act, nor in 
the Actings and Ministries of others ; for 

There is but one God, Lord, and Spirit, from whom those 
Gifts, Administrations and Operations proceed, 1 Cor. 12 — 
without whose holy and heavenly concurrence in all these three, 
both Gifts, and Administrations, and Operations, instead of 
Glorifying the name of Christ, and saving Souls, we may 
Blaspheme his name, and grieve his spirit, and hinder and har- 
den poor souls against Repentance, when we pursuade them of 
their [already] blessed state of Christianity, and that they are 
New born, the saints and sons, and daughters of the living 
Cod ; therefore, 



1 78 DISCOURSE. 

Thirdly. If it shall please our most Noble Governors, to 
search into the Institution, and Constitution [as they have done 
of the Diocesan, so also] of the National and Parish Churches, 
[concerning which I shall humbly subjoin some queries in the 
close of all], 

If they please to take off the Yokes, the Soul Yokes of 
binding all persons to such Parochial or Parish forms, permit- 
ting them to enjoy their belief whether within or without such 
parish worship, parish maintenance, parish Marryings, parish 
Buryings, by which the souls and consciences of so many have 
been imbondaged in life and death, and [their bodies, in respect 
of buryings] after death, 

If they shall please so far [if not to countenance, yet] to per- 
mit impartially, all consciences, and especially the consciences, 
the meetings, and assemblies of faithful and conscionable peo- 
ple [the Volunteers in preaching Christ Jesus,] so as that what 
people and persons please may peaceably frequent and repair 
to such spiritual meetings and assemblies as they do the Parish 
Churches: lam humbly confident that, as to the point of con- 
verting souls to God, [so far as the present state of Christianity 
can be so promoted] the souls of thousands will bless God 
more than if millions of Hirelings were sent abroad from all 
the Universities both of Popish, and Protestant Countries. 

Fourthly. Upon the grounds first laid, I observe the great 
and wonderful mistake, both of our own, and our Fathers, as to 
the civil powers of this world, acting in spiritual matters. I have 
read [as blessed Latimer once said] the last Will and Testa, 
ment ot the Lord Jesus, over many times, and yet I cannot 
find by one tittle of that Testament, that if he had been pleased 
to have accepted of a temporal Crown and Government, that 
ever he would have put the least finger of temporal or civil 
power, in the matters of his spiritual affairs and Kingdom. 
Hence must it lamentably be against the Testimony of Christ 
Jesus, for the Civil State to impose upon the^ Souls of the 
People a Religion, a Worship, a Ministry, Oaths, [in Religious 
and Civil affairs] Tithes, Times, Days, Marryings, and Bury- 
ings in holy ground yet in force, as I have [I hope] by the help 
of God, fully debated the great question with Master Cotton, 
and washed off all his late washings of that bloody Tenet of 
Pesecution, &c. 

What is then the express duty of the Civil Magistrate as 
to Christ Jesus, his Gospel and Kingdom ? 



DISCOURSE. 1 / 9 

I answer. I know how wofully that Scripture, Kings shall 
be thy nursing Fathers, &c, hath been abused, and elsewhere 
I have at large discussed that, and other such objections : At 
present, I humbly conceive, that the great Duty of the Mag- 
istrate, as to spirituals, will turn upon these two things. 

First. In removing the Civil Bars, Obstructions, hinder, 
ances, in taking off those yokes, that pinch the very Souls 
and consciences of men, such as yet are the payments of 
of Tithes, and the Maintenance of Ministers, they have no 
faith in : Such are the enforced Oaths, and some ceremonies 
therein, in all the Courts of Justice, such are the holy Mary- 
ings, holy buryings, &c. 

Secondly. In tne free and absolute permission of the con- 
science of all men, in what is merely spiritual, not the very 
consciences of the Jews, nor the consciences of the Turks, or 
Papists, or Pagans themselves excepted. 

But how will this propagate the Gospel ot Christ Jesus? I 
answer thus, The first grand Design of Christ Jesus, is, to 
destroy, and consume his Mortal enemy, Antichrist. This 
must be done by the breath of his Mouth in his Prophets and 
Witnesses : Now the Nations of the World have impiously 
stopt this heavenly breath, stifled the Lord Jesus in his Serv- 
ants. Now if it shall please the civil state to remove the 
state bars, set up to resist the holy spirit of God in his serv- 
ants, [whom yet finally to resist, is not in all the powers of 
the world] I humbly conceive that the civil state hath made 
a fair progress in promoting the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

This Mercy and freedom is due to the [merely] religious 
consciences of men in the world. Is there no more due from 
the Magistrates to Christ Jesus, his Saints and Kingdom? 
I answer, while I plead th'j consciences of all men to be at 
Liberty, doubtless 1 must plead the Liberty of the Magistrate's 
conscience also, and therefore were his bounties and dona- 
tions to his Bishops and Ministers as large as those of Con- 
stantine ; who but the hofy Spirit of God in the mouths of 
his Prophets can restrain him ? Only let not Caesar [as Con- 
stantine in his settled prosperity did] rob the God of heaven 
of his Right?, the consciences of his subjects, their heavenly 
Rights, and Liberties. 

But under the pretence of propagating the Gospel of 
Christ Jesus [it may be said] what horrible opinions and 
spirits will be vented, as woful experience hath manifested I 



180 DISCOURSE. 

I answer. Opinions offensive are of two sorts ; some 
favoring of Impiety, and some Incivility. 

Against the first, Jesus Christ never called for the Sword 
of Steel to help the Sword of the Spirit, that two edged 
Sword that comes out of the mouth of the Lord Jesus : And 
therefore, if a World of Arians deny the Deity of Christ 
Jesus: If a Maniche deny his human nature; If the .lews 
deny both, and blasphemously call our Christ a Deceiver : 
Nay, if the Mahometans, the Turks [the greater part by far 
of one Religion in the world] if they 1 say, prefer their cheat- 
ing Mahomet before him, what now? Must rail, revile, &c. 
and cry out Blasphemer, Heretic ? Must we run to the 
Cutler's shop, the Armories and Magazines of the cities and 
Nations ? Must we run to the Cities and Nations, and Sen- 
ates, and cry, Help ye men of Ephesus, help, O Inhabitants of 
Jerusalem, &c. ? Or must we fly up to Heaven by prayers 
and curses, to fetch down Fire upon the persecuting Cap- 
tains and their fifties ] This do the Nations, this do false 
Christs and Christians ; but this did not, This will not do 
the Lamb of God, the Lion of Judah's Tribe, who with his 
Word and Spirit alone [which the Father hath promised to 
put into his Mouth, and the Mouth of his Seed, and the 
Mouth of his Seed's Seed, [Isa. 59] will either kill or save 
the gainsaying Opposite. The second sort, to wit opinions 
of Incivility, doubtless the opinions, as well as the practices, 
are the proper Object of the Civil Sword ; according to that 
and Magna Charta, for the civil Magistrate, Rom. 13 — and 
that true Apothegm or saying, Ex malis moribus bonae leges: 
Good Laws occasioned by evil manners. 

But ought not the civil Magistrates to repeal their Ordi- 
nance for Tithes, and also to appoint some course lor the 
maintenance of the Ministry? 

I answer. Upon the Ground of removing Soul Yokes 
and not restraining, nor constraining conscience, I humbly 
conceive that the civil State canriot by any Rule from Christ 
Jesus, either forbid the payment of Tithes to such whose 
conscience is to pay them, or enjoin them where the con- 
science is not so persuaded : For the further clearing of 
which assertion, I distinguish the people of this Nation, 
into two sorts, First, Such as have a Freedom in their mind 
to frequent the Public, Parish Assemblies of the Nation ; and 
they are also of two sorts. 



DISCOURSE. J 81 

First'. Such conscientious zeal of worshiping God, or out 
of a superstitious and traditional awe. 

Secondly. Such as can go or not go, and care not wha» 
Religion themselves and the State be of. 

There is a second sort of people in this Nation, which out 
of conscience dare not frequent such places ; a#d they are such. 

First. Such as indeed Fear God, and are in their con- 
sciences persuaded of an indelible Character of Holiness upon 
such Temples, as Temples dedicated to a Parish worship. 

Secondly. Such as out of an utter dislike of all Protestant 
Worship, and an high esteem of their own Catholic Faith, 
are as far from love to such places, as the former sort. 

Now all these consciences [yea the very conscience of the 
Papists, Jews, &c. [as I have proved at large in my answer to 
Master Cotton's Washings] ought freely and impartially to be 
permitted their several respective Worships, their Ministers of 
worship and what way of maintaining them they freely choose. 

But if the civil state enjoin not the maintenance of the Min- 
istry : If they quite let loose of the Golden Reins of Discipline 
[as the Parliament exprest and the Scots objected] What will 
become of the Ministry of the Gospel, and the Souls of men 1 
For if each man's conscience be at Liberty to come to Church 
or not, to pay to the Minister or not, the profane and loose will 
neither pay, nor pray, but turn Antichrist, and irreligious. The 
Ministers of Worship will be discouraged and destitute, and 
Parents will have little mind to expend their monies to make 
their children Scholars, when the Hope of their preferment is 
cut off. 

I answer. First, that the Supreme Court in their Declara- 
tion never Declared to bar up all the Doors and Windows 
of that Honorable House, so that no further counsels come 
from the most glorious Sun of Righteousness the Lord Jesus. 

Although the loose will be more loose [yet] possibly being at 
more Liberty, they may be put upon consideration, and choice 
of ways of life and peace ; yet however it is infinitely better 
that the profane and loose be unmasked, than to be muffled up 
under the veil and hood of Traditional Hypocrisy, which turns 
and dulls the very edge of all conscience either towards God or 
man. 

Thirdly. It is not to be doubted, but that each conscience, 
the Papists, and the Protestants, both Presbyterians, and Inde- 
pendents, will emulouslv strive for [their not only conscience 

L 



182 DISCOURSE. 

but] credit's sake, to excel and win the Garland in the fruits of 
bounty, &c. Thus a Jesuit once in New Gate boasted of the 
Papist charity to a Protestant [put in also for his conscience by 
the Bishops]; for, pulling out his handful of Gold, look here [said 
he] are the fruits of our Religion. 

Fourthly. Su©h Parents, or children, as aim at the gain and 
preferment of Religion, do often mistake Gain and Gold, for 
Godliness ; God-belly for the true God, and some false, for the 
true Lord Jesus. I add, such Priests or Ministers as can force 
a maintenance of Tithes or otherwise, by the Sword, or can 
else cease preaching for want of such or such maintenance, or 
can remove from Bishoprics or Benefices [as Calves and 
Bulls of Bashan] for fatter, and ranker pastures: or want- 
ing Spiritual work and maintenance, are too fine to work 
with their hands, as the first patterns, Christ's first Ministers 
did ; how can they say as Peter, to Christ Jesus, Lord thou 
knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee, &c. 

Therefore, lastly, The Father of Spirits graciously be 
pleased to preserve the spirits of our higher powers from lay- 
ing on of Hay and Stubble, though upon the Golden founda- 
tion, Christ Jesus ; for all such work in matters spiritual, 
which our Forefathers either Popish or Protestant, in their 
several changes in this Nation have made, they have been 
consumed, and burnt (like Hay and Stubble) and come to 
nothing. 

The Surama Totalis of all the former particulars is this. 
First, since the people of this Nation have been forced into a 
National way of Worship, both Popish and Protestant (as the 
wheels of time's revolutions, by God's mighty providence and 
permission have turned about) The civil state is bound before 
God to take off that bond and yoke of Soul oppression, and 
to proclaim free and impartial Liberty to all people of the 
three Nations, to choose and maintain what Worship and 
Ministry their Souls and consciences are persuaded of: 
which Act, as it will prove an Act of mercy and Righteous- 
ness to the enslaved Nations, so is it ot a binding force to 
engage the whole and every Interest, and conscience to pre- 
serve the common peace : However, an Act most suiting with 
the piety and Christianity of the holy Testament of Christ 
Jesus. 

Secondly. The civil state is humbly to be implored, to 
provide in their high Wisdom for the security of all the re- 



DISCOURSE. 183 

spective consciences in their respective meetings, assemblings 
worshipings, &,c. and that civil peace and the beauty of civil- 
ity, and humanity be maintained among the chief opposers 
and dissenters. 

Thirdly, It is' the duty of all that are in Authority, and of 
all that are able, to countenance, encourage and supply such 
true Volunteers, as give and devote themselves to the service 
and Ministry of Christ Jesus in any kind: although it be also 
the duty and will be the practice of such, whom the Spirit of 
God sends upon any work of Christ's, rather to work as Paul 
did, among the Corinthians, and Thessalonians, than the 
work and service of their Lord and Master should bs neg- 
lected. 

Such true Christian Worthies (whether endowed with hu- 
man Learning, or without it) will alone be found that despised 
model which the God of Heaven will only bless ; that poor 
handful, and three hundred out of Israel's thirty-two thousand, 
by whom the work of the God of Israel must be effected. 
And if this course be effected, in the three Nations, the bodies 
and Souls of the three Nations will be more and more at 
peace and in a fairer way than ever to that peace which is 
Eternal, when the World is gone. 



NOTE 



9CT What does the reader now think of a " Hireling Ministry?" — what 
of their pretensions to piety, who will not preach the Gospel, unless they can 
get a living by it ? — what of the sincerity of such persons as glory in the 
Antichristian " titles" scrambled for by so many nominal ministers of 
Christ, Baptists as well as others ?— what of the " seed-plots" for furnish- 
ing the world with manufactured ministers, which the people are made to 
suppose are a modern improvement not heard of before the nineteenth 
century 1 — what of removals to " fatter Benefices," whose larger " salaries" 
are considered as louder " calls " from God 1 — what of Mr. Williams' 
views of calls to the ministry ? — what of Roger Williams' political char- 
acter and " intermeddlings" 1 — what of his opinion of the right of civil 
government to establish slavery, which excludes every slave from all free- 
dom of conscience, even to read the Bible or to join any Church without 
express permission from his " owner," or to profess any faith which his 
" master" forbids him to profess, or to have his own wife, or her own hus- 
band, or to preach the Gospel, only by special permission of a master, it 
may be the most ungodly wretch in the land, or to be " buried" in the day 
time or among the white members of the Church ? What think you of 
the Northern man who speaks eulogiums on the character of Roger 
Williams, but treats with contempt the sentiments whose advocacy has 
made his name worthy of remembrance, and despises those brethren who 
are now humbly endeavoring to make those sentiments practical realities 
in the American Churches. 

" Prove all things ; hold fast that which is good." 



INDEX. 



Pagk. 

Occasion of the Review 3 

Mr. Fuller's views of slavery and his argument 5-35, Arc. 

Mr. F. not a eulogist of slavery, yet he regards it not a moral evil, 6, 22 
Consequences of abolition not to be regarded, if slavery be a sin, 7, 99 

His view of Mr. W.'s admission that the Bible sanctions slavery, 8 

The " Correspondence" counteracts much labor already done,, i 9 

Mr. F.'s argument sophistical, and truth may triumph, > 10 

His definition of slavery and Paley's, S 30 

Mr. W 's addition to the definition — Mr. F. defends slavery as 

it is 11 

God instituted slavery, Mr. F.'s premise— Slavery like parental 

and civil government 13 

Slave's rights secured — New view to Mr. W. and better, 

Mr. F. not impeccable 16 

Can't associate with abolitionists — No one can, <Scc,— It is time 18 

the question were settled, 19 

Natural religion condems slavery 22 

No free people ought to be reduced to a state of slavery — Irres- 
ponsible power not safe — Inferences from Mr. F.'s state- 
ments, 23 

Man may not test the truth of the Bible by what it contains,. . . 24, 67 
God gave everv man liberty — The word " right" is out of place 

in Mr. F.'s definition 26 

The United States Constitution, 27 

God denounces slavery, 29 

Suppose white Americans in slavery 31 

Abuses of slavery condemned, but the relation right . . Miss 

Martineau, 32 

No man can consent to be a slave 

Mr. F. too much for Mr. W 34 

Prayer for Mr. F., 35 

Hebrew Philology— Greek of New Testament, 47 

Noah's curse, 43 

Joseph a slave, 44 

The word slave not in the Bible— Revelation xviii, 45 

Abraham had servants, but no slaves, 50 

Isaac, Jacob and the twelve patriarchs, 56 

Sold themselves 57 

Circumcision a rite making all its subjects citizens. .Sen-ants, 

&c-, 58 

Patriarchal government — Yahn or Jahn 59 

" Absolute liberty too violent a stimulant" — They " may enslave 

us"— Mr. \Y\— This his triumph ? 61 



186 INDEX. 

Page: 

The Mosaic Law, 62 

Abimelech, &c, 63 

Buying servants a different thing from buying and selling men. . 

Buy. .possession — for ever, 64, 69, 81 

Parental authority supreme over the child and, therefore, the 

slaveholder can have none, g5 jQ9 

Logic a convenient thing, ' 55 

Heathenism might tolerate slavery, but Jehovah never, 57 

Ignorance not Mr. F.'s protection, 72 

Philology challenged, 73 

Hired servants and strangers not freemen till circumcised, 77 

"For ever." 70 

" Possession," 77 

The baptized free, 77 

Political bearings of the subject, 78 

Slaves admitted to be men and Christian Brethren, 79 

Protection of servants under the Mosaic law, '80 

Marriage not annulled by the Mosaic law, 8-i 

The purchase money paid to the person bought, 81 

Hebrews were sold, 81 

Divorcement bill of. .Ear bored, 85 

Josephus' explanation of the words " for ever," 85 

Jubilee, all free, 85 

Judas sold Jesus, 86 

Gibeonites tributaries, 87 

Governments hold not the right to condemn those who obey the 

law of God 87 

C. T. Torrey legally imprisoned, 88 

Abolitionists in conflict with the Bible, 88 

Good men responsible for the acts of their party, 89, 103 

Gov. Hammond, 90 

A Floridian patriarch, 90 

'• Terror" the universal influence employed on slaves and all col- 
ored people f)j 

Freedom the only thing valuable to be offered a slave, 93 

Connubial concerns not to be interfered with, 93 

Beligion spoils the slaves, 93 

Bepeal of slave laws by universal practice, 94 

Breckenridge's view, 95 

Cassius M. Clay, 96 

Education of a colored man us important as that of others. .Why 

not ? 97 

North and South compared 97 

Mr. Fuller's slaves educated 1 98 

Mr. Fuller to Agricultural Society 99 

Expediency taught by the Lord Jesus Christ, 99 

Paul a craven and faithless herald, if, ]00 

The boldness of Mr. F., 101, 113 

Human enactments do not affect slavery, 104 

Despot ism.. Slavery unrestrained by law, 104 

Expansion of the golden rule, 104 

George Keely 106 

Sleep may be slavery, 107 

Voluntary slave « 107 



INDEX. 187 

Paok. 

The thing.. not the name to be regarded, jO^ 

Condemned by Bible, ]08 

Fallacy of Mr. F.'s argument o 103 

Anti-Republican,.** 1IJ 

Thomas Jefterson, HI 

John Baptist, 313 

Daniel 113 

"Powers that be," 113 

Pride of piety, 114 

Roger Wi lliams 1 15 

1740 — Law against teaching slaves 115 

Ministers yield to certain considerations, 115 

White people oppressed 116 

Tyrants degrade their subjects, 117 

1830. .Modern Abolitionism, 117 

Wesley and Whitfield 117 

White slaves, Greeks &c, 121 

Who shall be the slave 7 121 

Prohibition of slavery by the Gospel. .Matth. xx., 122 

Despotism expressly forbidden by Christ 122 

Violence essential to slavery,. 124 

Mr. Wayland's conduct of the argument, 124 

Independent inquiry every man's duty, 125 

Euclid not to be believed", but demonstrated, 125 

Error perpetuated by the corresspondence, 126 

Prohibitory precept, 122, 145 

Perspicuity of Christ and mystery of the "Doctors," 145 

The necessity of the prohibitory precept, 146 

Roman Tyranny 147 

Tyrants call each otber benefactors or righteous people 148 

Christ condemned the wickedness of the government under which 

he lived, 148 

Superlative meanness and turpitude of robbing the poor, 149 

The superior " moral science," 150 

Gospel ultraism. .Degrees in guilt. .Slavery the most flagrant of 

the sins of oppression, 151 

The Christian required to be a doulos, or voluntary servant . . 

Christ's example, L52 

Pride and slaveholding rebuked by the example of Christ, 153 

Sermon bv Roger Williams, 155— 183 

Note by the Editor, 184 



!*/</£ 






4F 














<v , o " • 
















r oV v 











o «<* 



0» , V 







«*°- 







1 *> 



4 o 



%/•'.* 









BOOKBISOISC H 





* A V *^ 



